The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence relevant to the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant employed G and F as the actual representative of E Co., Ltd. and did not pay wages, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to

2. The summary of the facts charged is the actual representative of Co., Ltd. E (E) with D 2013 of the Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “E”) who runs construction and mid-term lending business using four full-time workers.

The Defendant did not pay the sum of FF’s wages of October 3, 2013, which were worked from August 20, 2013 to November 13, 2013 at the same place of business, KRW 1,509,186 (total 5,120,407 won), KRW 3,961,610, and KRW 4,000,00 (total 7,961,610 won) in November 2013, and KRW 13,082,017 in November 14, 2014 without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

3. Determination

A. In determining whether a contract constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, regardless of whether the contract is an employment contract under the Civil Act or a contract for work, or whether it is a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in substance. In determining whether a subordinate relationship exists, the contents of the work shall be determined by the employer, subject to the rules of employment, service regulations, personnel regulations, etc., and shall be subject to specific and direct direction and supervision from the employer in the course of performing the work, whether the working hours and the place of work are designated by the employer and are detained by the employer, and whether the worker is employed by a third party.