A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Even so, the court below cannot see F as a worker under the Labor Standards Act only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

Therefore, since the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether a person constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged by the witness F’s statement at the lower court’s court and the investigative agency’s statement, evidence of labor (such as notification of the person having access to the company), customer visit, etc., the lower court held that F was given the Defendant’s order in the process, since F was deemed to have been given the transferee’s order inasmuch as F was deemed to have been given the Defendant’s order in the process of having been given inasmuch as F was deemed to have been a part of the transferee’s order in the process.

Even if this cannot be deemed to have provided labor under the direction and supervision of the defendant, and merely because the F was to receive a monthly salary of 1.5 million won from the defendant, it is difficult to view the F as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

The decision was determined.

B. Determination 1 of this Court ought to be determined based on whether the form of contract is an employment contract or a delegation contract, or whether the substance of the relationship to provide labor is an employment contract or a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages in the business or workplace.

Here, whether or not a subordinate relationship is determined by the employer and is subject to the rules of employment or service regulations, etc. in the course of performing duties.