All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the seafarer F and K employed by Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) are clearly subject to the Seafarers’ Act; (b) the Defendants’ assertion that the aforementioned seafarer’s work form is similar to that of the land workers does not constitute “reasonable grounds for not paying wages, etc.” under the Seafarers’ Act and the Labor Standards Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which acquitted the Defendants on the purport that they did not have any intention to violate the Seafarers' Act to the representative director of the Defendant Company A, etc., due to considerable reasons for

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that there was a ground for dispute as to whether Defendant A and I (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”) who is the former representative director of the Defendant Company, had the duty to pay the amount equivalent to the ordinary wage for the number of days during which the paid leave under the Seafarers Act was not used and the scope of the

Thus, there is a duty to pay the above amount to the defendant, etc.

Even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was intentional as to the unpaid portion

It judged that there was a lack of recognition.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor, and thus the prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit. Thus, the Prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.