Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was not the employer of the instant workers, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative of the council of occupants' representatives in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, has a full-time employee 40 workers, has overall control over the above apartment management

Although wages are paid at least once a month on a fixed date, the Defendant did not pay the total of KRW 14,276,950 on the regular wage payment date, including that of KRW 3,730,080 of the workers C, who worked as the managing director from November 1, 2003 to the above apartment complex, was not paid on April 25, 2016.

B. (1) The lower court: (a) the instant workers were those employed by D, a corporation that entered into an entrustment management contract with the council of occupants’ representatives, and it is difficult to deem the Defendant to have been an employer for the instant workers during the period of the consignment management contract; and (b) the Defendant had worked for the instant workers in accordance with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission’s order for remedy.

On the ground that the labor relationship, which did not exist at the beginning, cannot be deemed as having been temporarily and temporarily recovered from the employment relationship, and that the labor relationship cannot be deemed to have been newly established in light of whether the parties provided the labor relationship, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having been the employer of the instant worker, such as the instant facts charged.

Dolls, records, and records.