A. Error of facts ① The Defendant is an executive officer or employee of E and D, and cannot be seen as an “employer” under Article 109 of the Labor Standards Act, because it is not a representative of a legal entity. ② Although F, J, K, L, and S (hereinafter “F, etc.”) suffered defects in the construction part, F, etc. did not guarantee the repair of defects. Therefore, the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay wages to workers, such as F, etc., and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, Article 2(1)2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the term "employer" means a business owner, a person in charge of business operation, or any other person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters relating to workers, and a person in charge of business operation refers to a person who is responsible for the general business of business operation and is delegated by the business owner with a comprehensive delegation of all or part of the business operation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8364, May 11, 2006). The following circumstances are examined: (a) the defendant has consistently stated that the actual operator of D was the defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below; (b) the above statement was made under the guarantee of voluntariness within due process; and (c) the representative director of D, who is a person in charge of business operation, represents or represents the above company with a comprehensive delegation of all or part of the business operation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8364, May 11, 2006).