근로기준법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the acquittal portion of the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to non-delivery of the labor contract and dismissed the public prosecution on the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to non-payment of wages. As such, since the part dismissing the public prosecution was separated and finalized by filing an appeal only on the non-guilty portion, the scope of the judgment below is limited to the non-guilty portion among the judgment below, and the scope of the judgment of the lower court is limited to the non-guilty portion) E was in the position of the chief in the position of the head of department from August 21, 2017 to October 20, 2017. In full view of text messages between the Defendant and E, the weekly work plan prepared by E, and the statement of D employeeF, the Defendant’s designation and direction and supervision of E’s working
Therefore, the E's nature of workers can be fully recognized.
2. The lower court determined that: (a) around January 2017, the Defendant proposed that E would assist the Defendant to select H business, which is a support business of the Small and Medium Business Administration; (b) the Defendant and E would be selected as H business by changing a separate legal entity of F, a D employee, to J; (c) the Defendant and E agreed to jointly manage the H business by allocating the shares of J; (d) the Defendant and E would have been engaged in the business in an equal relationship with the J legal entity; (c) these relations appear to have no particular change during the period of service claimed by E; (d) there is more room to view that the content of E’s business is linked to the J-related business, rather than the inherent business of D; and (e) it is difficult to recognize the credibility of E’s statement, such as attitude, labor conditions statement, testimony and testimony in the court, etc. after E’s retirement.
The reasoning of the judgment below is based on the records.