However, since there is no appeal as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act with respect to workers C who have dismissed the public prosecution by filing an appeal against the part of conviction, only the remaining guilty part of the judgment below, excluding the dismissed part of the public prosecution, is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. The grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) are as follows: (a) the employee paid all wages to the employees in subrogation of the Defendant by providing the service company that has been going to the site of the instant workers with a preferential payment of wages; and (b) the employees accused the Defendant or do not have true facts; (c) thus, the Defendant cannot be punished for a violation of

3. The lower court’s judgment acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the witness I, C’s respective legal statements, and the agreement for payment of G preparation, etc. can be seen as having known that the instant employee was unable to receive wages within 14 days from the date of his retirement; ② the Defendant also recognized that the instant employee was not paid wages at an investigative agency; ③ the service company’s payment of wages to the instant employee by subrogation of the Defendant or G.

In addition, there is no evidence to see that Defendant or G and the service company agreed to pay wages to the employees first by subrogation of the Defendant or G in the service company.

There is no evidence to view that the obligation to pay wages to the instant workers is borne by the Defendant or G, and there is no fact that the Defendant or G paid it, and ④ wages.