근로자퇴직급여보장법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered into a nominal business consignment agreement, business partnership agreement, etc. from April 1, 2009 to July 31, 2014; (b) but such agreement is practically subordinate employment contract and is recognized as E’s employee.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the part of the facts charged due to the failure to pay retirement allowances for the period of service from December 10, 2013 to July 31, 2014 on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize the worker status after December 10, 2013 only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and determined that the part of the facts charged due to the unpaid retirement allowances for the period of service from April 1, 2009 to December 9, 2013 was acquitted due to the completion of the statute of limitations.
Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the prosecutor’s assertion, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, or by
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.