The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the failure to pay an advance notice of dismissal allowance among the facts charged in this case on the premise that the defendant was dismissed D, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that it was reasonable to view that the Defendant dismissed D around September 5, 2018, considering that D was working as a delivery engineer at the instant workplace, and that D was in operation of the instant workplace on September 5, 2018, and that D was returned the key of the said vehicle from D, and that D did not respond to the Defendant’s “NISP” (which did not mean that the Defendant was not dismissed) but did not respond to the Defendant (the Defendant was not dismissed). In full view of the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s return of the key and the specific circumstances at the time, the lower court determined that the Defendant dismissed D around September 5, 2018.

B. Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.