The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records as to the assertion that the defendant ordered work of this case to G, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance (the judgment of the court of first instance was limited to the decision of the family appropriateness of the judgment of the court of first instance, but it appears to be premised on the judgment of the court of first instance as to whether the defendant is a contractor) and paid the remuneration, material, etc. calculated per day to G without preparing a separate contract, and it is difficult to view that the defendant entered into a contract with G at any time. Considering that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, it is reasonable to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the charge of this case on the premise that the defendant is a contractor who ordered work with G, and

2. The part of the judgment of the court below which determined that the contractor who is the owner is not included in the direct contractor as stipulated in Article 44(1) of the Labor Standards Act with regard to the claim that the contractor is the direct contractor where the contract was made in one occasion is a subcontractor, is merely a decision on whether the defendant is the subcontractor who has concluded the contract with G.

However, as seen earlier, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to deem that the Defendant constituted a contractor who entered into a contract with G, as seen earlier, did not err in its judgment on additional charges

Even if this does not affect the judgment, it can not affect the judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's ground of appeal on this point cannot be accepted without further review.

3. Conclusion.