A. Legal principles and factual misunderstanding 1) H, G, I, J, and K (hereinafter “H, etc.”) are not workers who have provided labor in subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages in light of the form of work, wage system, whether the labor income tax is collected, whether H, etc. is covered by the 4th insurance (misunderstanding of legal principles). However, even if H, etc. constitute workers, the Defendant prepared an agreement with H, etc. on a consignment contract business operator rather than a contract with H, etc., the Defendant was not covered by the 4th insurance and did not collect labor income tax, and the details of wages and retirement allowances to be paid to H, etc. are not calculated accurately, and there is no intention in violation of the Labor Standards Act (misunderstanding of facts). (b) The punishment (amount to KRW 6 million) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant who was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle 1) The Defendant argued that the grounds for appeal in this part are the same, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion with detailed explanation of the relevant legal principles and reasons, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

2) The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is as follows, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① although H et al. did not have been covered by the fourth insurance, the circumstance of whether the employee is recognized as an employee regarding the social security system is highly likely to be determined in the manner of mind by using the economic superior status of the employer, and the mere fact that such a point is not recognized should not be readily denied.