2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s submission by the Prosecutor as evidence that the Defendant hired foreign workers is the only entry of the foreign worker’s written statement and L’s written statement at the police station; (b) the foreign worker’s written statement merely entered the name of the company and its representative and did not appear specific (Evidence 8 through 11); (c) the police officer stated that the Defendant operated the said company from August 22, 2010 to the same workplace and transferred it to the Defendant on or around February 22, 2011 (Evidence 43,44 of the evidence record); (d) according to the evidence No. 1 of the evidence (Public Trial Record No. 34 of the trial record), L demanded the Defendant to pay settlement money on the premise that the Defendant maintained his/her business relationship on or around September 2011; and (e) there was no other evidence to prove the business relationship, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

A thorough examination of the evidence of this case in light of the records reveals that it is difficult for the court below to deem that the defendant employed foreign workers on the basis of the above circumstances, and thus, the court below's decision that the defendant was acquitted of the above facts charged is just and acceptable, and it is insufficient to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case even if the court below duly adopted and investigated all the evidence.

Therefore, as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment of the court below, there is an error affecting the judgment.