A. The Defendant was not an employer of H, etc. under the Labor Standards Act, and there was no conspiracy with G to commit the instant crime. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on workers or employers under the Labor Standards Act, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the following facts or circumstances that can be recognized by the court below, i.e., (i) the Corporation was subcontracted from Dud Construction Co., Ltd.; (ii) the Corporation was unable to conclude a contract for construction; (iii) the Defendant was also aware of such circumstances; and (ii) the Defendant was also subject to management and supervision as to whether the Corporation was well under the name of Dud Construction Co., Ltd.; and (iii) the Defendant was delegated to G with respect to the employment of workers and the details of wages, and specific work instructions. (iii) When the construction was suspended, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant only lent the name to G for the execution of the above contract; and (iv) the Defendant was paid the work price from Dud Construction Co., Ltd., under the Labor Standards Act; and (iv) G was a “person who acts for the business owner with respect to the matters related to workers,” and therefore, constitutes an employer as provided in Article 2(1)2)2 of the Labor Standards Act.

B. Although the amount of wages not paid to one worker on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not significant, the Defendant has been punished three times for the same kind of crime, and the employee’s wages are paid.