A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant was in the position of receiving monthly wages from D, the owner of the instant construction site, merely because it is merely the site manager of the instant construction site, and does not constitute “employer” who is obligated to liquidate money and goods pursuant to Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act. 2) The Defendant was unable to receive the construction payment from D, and thus, is not liable for the wages of workers.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion that the employer is not the “employer” under the Labor Standards Act refers to the employer’s disturbance, business manager, and other person who acts on behalf of the employer with respect to the matters related to workers (Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Labor Standards Act). In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the Defendant, as the site manager of the home house construction work located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, and the owner of the building, determined the amount of wages, etc. under the Defendant’s responsibility, employed eight workers, such as C, E, etc. under the Defendant’s responsibility, and controlled and supervised their work, and conducted the construction work. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant is in the employer’s status in relation to the eight workers, such as C, etc., even if there is a problem such as the payment of construction cost between the Defendant and D, such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the Defendant is not in the employer’s relationship with C, etc.