D is only employed as a driver only to F, and the company of this case did not provide labor as an employee in charge of accounting.

2. The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court.

The court below rejected the argument in detail as to the following arguments in the application of statutes:

The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant asserted that text messages submitted by D were forged and offered additional services to “M,” which is a communications company affiliated with D. However, D used a phone call affiliated with K providing additional services at the time (i.e., inquiry reply by June 19, 2019, and “M” appearing in text messages submitted by D appear to have been from April 19 to March 2015 (2: 41,54 pages of investigation records), and the phone number used by D used from January 1, 2014 to July 10, 2016, and only the Defendant and the recipient did not appear to have been admitted to the instant company for some period of 10 days from July 30, 2016 to July 30, 2016.