In regard to this, the defendant appealed only against the guilty portion, and the prosecutor did not appeal, and the rejection portion of the prosecution which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal is separated and confirmed as it is. Thus, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. He/she would directly pay wages to workers who are the owner of the construction of the O Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had-

Since the defendant was determined to pay wages, the defendant has no obligation to pay wages to him.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of 4.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of fact: (a) stated in this Court, that D would offer money to the Defendant as it would have to complete the construction on September 2014, because D would have to pay money to the Defendant around September 2014.

F. The statement was made to the effect that H gave a wage to H, but H rejected the statement. The statement was made to the effect that “H had already paid money to G and promised to pay D wages directly from July 25, 2014 on the condition that it would not be possible to pay D any double payment, and that D promised to pay D wages directly from July 25, 2014 on the condition that the bonds acquired by the judgment of this case were transferred.” According to each of the above statements, there was an agreement between D, Defendant, and H that “the Defendant would pay D wages to be paid to D, etc. by the Defendant instead of the Defendant.”

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, Korea P, Q, and C are the defendants.