최저임금법위반등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misapprehension of the legal principle), the fact that the defendant employed D and worked approximately eight hours a day on an average, and paid only below the minimum wage amount can be sufficiently recognized.
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 acquitted the Defendant on the instant facts charged on the ground that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that D had worked for eight hours a day from March 21, 2016 to September 29, 2017, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Examining the above judgment of the court below closely after comparison with the records, it is recognized that the judgment of the court below is just and it is confirmed that D has been sentenced to a judgment dismissing D's claim in a civil lawsuit against the defendant for which wages below the minimum wage amount falls short of the minimum wage amount (Seoul District Court 2018Na2766). Contrary to the prosecutor's assertion, it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misunderstanding facts
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.