A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which determined that even if a person was actually employed by Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”), he did not have been employed by the Defendant Co., Ltd. at the time and time indicated in the facts charged.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant Company: a fine of KRW 3 million) against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, E and F consistently stated that the police did not have been employed by the defendant company. However, the court below reversed the police statement by making a statement from November 201, 2017 that was employed by the defendant company and was in charge of duties of care and publicity as stated in each labor contract (the investigation record No. 81,89 pages) (the trial record No. 57,86 pages). However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the police statement of E and F is higher than the original court’s legal statement, and their legal statement of the court below is difficult to believe. A) In full view of the following circumstances, F is difficult to determine that it was first made with G on December 7, 2017, and E is difficult to say that it was made between G and the defendant 127, respectively.

(1) The F stated, at the police station, that “The G, a person of Cho Jong-man and Cho Jong-kon on December 7, 2017, gave money to him/her as he/she reported to his/her house at his/her home and provided him/her with the money.” The F stated, “The B (2nd floor) where the place was located in J was located in J, Jin-ju.”

(2) E "At the police station" on December 11, 2017, any woman was found to have his house and the B Welfare Center.