The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. 19 workers listed in the annexed list of crimes against mistake of facts Nos. 29 through 47 are workers who unilaterally put a subcontract into the construction site by G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) and directed work at the construction site, not workers employed by the Defendant.

Therefore, although the above workers are not employers under the Labor Standards Act, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In determining who is liable to pay wages and retirement allowances to a worker under the relevant legal doctrine, the actual employment relationship should be based regardless of the form of a contract or the content of the relevant law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107071, 10708, May 24, 2012). Articles 109 and 36 of the Labor Standards Act provide that the subject of a violation of Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act refers to an employer, who is an employer, or a person in charge of business management, or other person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to matters relating to workers. Here, the term "employer" refers to a business owner, and the term "person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to matters relating to workers" refers to a person who is granted certain authority and responsibilities from an employer with respect to the determination of working conditions, such as personnel affairs, wages, welfare, and labor management, or matters related to occupational order, direction or supervision, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do15915 Decided June 11, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8364 Decided May 11, 2006, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do8364, Jun. 11

Attached Form

The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the part concerning workers (AE) set forth in No. 29 per annum of the crime sight table, i.e., ①.