A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, F, G, E, etc. (hereinafter “D, etc.”) is not an employee under the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, but the Defendant had no intention to pay retirement allowances in the instant case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. Whether a worker is a worker under the relevant legal doctrine ought to be determined in accordance with whether a contract form is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and whether an employee in substance provided labor to an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace.

Here, whether a dependent relationship exists with an employer should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) whether the employer determines the content of work; (b) whether the employer is subject to the rules of employment or the rules of service; (c) whether the employer designates working hours and places of work; (d) whether the employer is bound by the employer; (e) whether the employer is able to operate his/her business on his/her own account; (e) whether the employer voluntarily owns equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc.; (e) whether the employer has a risk, such as creation of profits and losses from providing labor; (g) whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of the work itself; (d) whether the basic wage or fixed wage has been determined; and (e) whether the income tax has been withheld; (e) whether the employer has continued to provide labor; and (e) whether the employer has exclusive responsibility for the employer; and (

However, the employer is recognized as an employee in relation to whether the basic wage or fixed wage was determined, whether the labor income tax was withheld, and whether the social security system was recognized as an employee.