Part on the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the failure to provide a document due to the change of working hours.

In this regard, the prosecutor filed an appeal on the ground of misunderstanding the facts only for the portion not delivered in writing following the change of working hours, and the remaining portion of innocence has been finally determined as the period of appeal has expired.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the failure to provide the documents following the change of working hours by the prosecutor who filed an appeal.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that “work hours” is subject to the duty to specify under Article 17(1)2 of the Labor Standards Act, and where the above matters are changed, the employer shall deliver a document about the change to the worker in accordance with the main sentence of Article 17(2) of the Labor Standards Act.

Nevertheless, the first instance court’s amendment to “work hours” by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, on the premise that it is modified due to the grounds prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as an amendment to the organization agreement and the rules of employment, and that it is subject to the delivery in writing only if required by the worker, does not constitute such a case as to the F’s amendment

Based on the judgment, the defendant was acquitted.

3. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is the E representative on the fourth floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building, who ordinarily employs 220 workers and operates a monitoring service business with environmental control.

An employer shall clearly state wages, prescribed working hours, holidays under Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act, annual paid leaves under Article 60 of the Labor Standards Act, and other working conditions prescribed by Presidential Decree when concluding an employment contract.