근로기준법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding (Article G) is not a business that ordinarily employs workers, but a defendant does not conclude a labor contract with G, and thus is not a violation of the Labor Standards Act.
B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
According to the records, the court of original judgment shall serve a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons, etc. on the defendant by means of serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and shall proceed with the trial proceedings in the absence of the defendant, and shall be sentenced to six months of imprisonment, and the defendant shall be sentenced to the defendant.
8. 19. Request for recovery of the right of appeal against the judgment of the court below which became final and conclusive formally, and the court below
8. 25. Requests for reinstatement of the right of appeal may be known.
According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to attend the trial of the court below due to a cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the court below's judgment has a ground for a request for retrial under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which constitutes grounds for appeal under Article 361-5 subparagraph 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Therefore, this court shall proceed with a new litigation procedure by delivering a duplicate of indictment to the defendant and render a new judgment according to the result of a new trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). Thus, the judgment of the court below became unable to be maintained as it is.
However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.
3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts
A. Whether the relevant legal doctrine constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and the employee in substance is a business or a workplace.