2. The Defendant also asserted the same as in the trial at the lower court, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, found the facts charged of the instant case guilty.

In full view of the circumstances indicated by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, namely, that the Defendant determined the wages of E and F, and paid wages to E and F by receiving the construction cost in lump sum from G, and that the Defendant directed and supervised the work of E and F, it is reasonable to deem the Defendant as the employer of E and F, and that the Defendant merely stated that the Defendant’s daily wage and salary income of E and F submitted in the first instance court is included in G as the Defendant Company, it does not interfere with the recognition of the Defendant as the employer of E and F, as seen earlier. Therefore, the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the facts as alleged by the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure; however, the "Labor Standards Act" under Article 25 (2) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure shall be amended to "former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017)" and "Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be added to "in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure," and "in accordance with Articles 37, 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the correction shall be made as follows."