A. (1) Defendant (1) is in violation of the Act on Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits: D is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the Defendant has no obligation to pay retirement allowances.

Even if there is no intention to violate the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits because there is a considerable reason to dispute about the existence of the obligation to pay retirement allowances as a defendant.

(2) The sentencing of the lower court (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. Violation of the Public Prosecutor’s Labor Standards Act: In light of D’s statement and working hours table, etc., it is recognized that workers D worked for at least nine hours a day, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the unpaid charges of overtime allowance.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment that violated the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

The lower court explained detailed circumstances, and determined that D, in its substance, deemed D as an employee who provided labor to the Defendant, who is an employer, for the purpose of wages, and that the Defendant had the intention to pay retirement allowances.

Examining evidence, the judgment of the court below is legitimate, and thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is not accepted

B. (1) In violation of the Labor Standards Act, the prosecutor changed the amount of the unpaid overtime allowance from “16,098,300 won” to “10,483,400 won,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by the court.

Since all the facts charged before and after the change work for 9 hours a day during the cosmetic service period of 9 hours a day, the average of 60 hours per month (50 hours per month on April 2015) was not paid within the time limit, and there is a difference only in the specific calculation method of the amount, so first, whether the defendant is liable to pay overtime allowances.