A. The court below found the defendant as the employer despite the fact that the defendant is not C's employer, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the results of the lower court’s judgment and the trial court’s duly adopted and examined evidence, in particular, C and F’s statements and inquiry about the Cheong PPP Co., Ltd., the following facts: (a) under the contract for the construction of D shop housing in Yangju-si, Switzerland awarded a subcontract to G for the part of the structural frame; (b) the Defendant was given a subcontract to H for the part of the structural frame to H; (c) the Defendant was assigned with the mold portion from H; (d) the Defendant was directed by the head of the on-site team and requested a human resources office on behalf of G; (c) the victim was directly placed in the site, not through the human resources office; (d) the victim was employed by several persons other than the victim, and (d) the daily allowances of the on-site members were KRW 150,000,000,000 for the victim’s daily wage, but the fact that the Defendant was determined as the victim’s daily wage as KRW 130,000.

In full view of the above circumstances, the defendant can sufficiently recognize that he is an employer who directly employs the victim, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. Although there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the sentencing is unfair and unfair, considering the equity between the size of the money in arrears and the same similar case, the lower court’s punishment is reasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.