A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (a written statement and non-delivery of working conditions) D only worked on July 4, 2018 only one day, and the Defendant and D had not completed an agreement on working conditions under Article 17 of the Labor Standards Act, and there was no time to discuss the working conditions due to the failure to avoid on the same day, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional act on the part of the Defendant, which did not specify in writing the working conditions. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence (a fine of KRW 100,000) which sentenced to unfair sentencing is too unreasonable

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact that, immediately after the withdrawal of D’s erroneous determination of facts (the point of delayed payment of wages), the Defendant asks D to inform him of the account number to be paid wages, and that the Defendant actively demanded account number after being investigated at the Seoul Western District Office of the Seoul Western District, the Defendant could be found guilty of the intention of delayed payment of wages, but there is an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges. 2) The punishment (one hundred thousand won of a fine) sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing is too un

2. According to Article 17 of the Labor Standards Act as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, an employer shall specify the wages, contractual hours, weekly holidays, annual paid leave, and other working conditions prescribed by Presidential Decree to the employee when concluding a labor contract. Of them, the employer shall deliver a document specifying the elements of wages, calculation method, payment method and contractual work hours, weekly holidays, and annual paid leave, and the purport thereof is to strengthen the legal status of the employee by preventing the risk of forced employment unfavorable to a disadvantage in the undetermined state of working conditions.

However, according to the defendant's argument, D has started the actual work.