The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant was in a de facto marital relationship with E, and it cannot be said that E at the time provided labor to the defendant in a subordinate relationship, E does not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on the premise that E is an employee.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment (one million won of fine) is too unlimited and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts should be made based on whether the form of a contract is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and in substance, whether an employee provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in the business or workplace. Determination of whether a dependent relationship exists should be made by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) whether the employer determines the work details and the employer’s work hours and place; (b) whether the employer is subject to considerable direction and supervision in the process of performing duties; (c) whether the employer is designated as work hours and place; (d) whether the employer is subject to the employer’s own possession of equipment, raw materials, work tools; and (e) whether the employer has become capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account; (e) whether the employer has a risk, such as the creation of profits and losses through the provision of labor; (e) whether the nature of remuneration was the subject of labor; and (e) whether the continuous provision of labor and the existence and degree of exclusive affiliation to the employer; and (e) economic and social conditions such as whether the status of the social security system is recognized.