A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The contract entered into between the Defendant and E (hereinafter “E”) and the J (hereinafter “J”) constitutes a disguised contract, and in fact, E constitutes a labor agency for J. Labor. The J directly employs the instant workers, directly determines working conditions such as working hours and place, and directly directs and supervises the instant workers in the process of performing their duties. As such, the employer for the instant workers is not the E but the J.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have a duty to liquidate money, such as wages and retirement allowances, for the instant workers.

Even if the Defendant, as the employer of the instant workers, is obligated to pay wages and retirement allowances to them.

Even if the Defendant received the contract amount from J and paid wages to the workers of this case, the Defendant did not receive the contract amount, and thus did not pay wages to the workers of this case. Thus, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant was unable to prevent the delayed or delayed payment of wages to the workers of this case in light of social norms.

Therefore, the defendant's liability should be excluded because there is no possibility of legitimate act.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In fact, a worker under the Labor Standards Act claiming that the defendant is not the employer of the instant worker refers to a person who provides labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages. It can be said that a person employed by the Plaintiff’s employer, who works for a third party’s workplace, is a third party’s worker.