The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle, since the Defendant entered into a contract with G, H, and I on a contract basis and distributed the proceeds therefrom.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining whether a contract constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, regardless of whether the contract is an employment contract or a contract for work under the Civil Act, or a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in substance, the determination of whether the worker provided the worker with the work should be based on whether the contract is in substance. In determining whether a subordinate relationship exists, the determination of whether the contents of the work are determined by the employer and are subject to the rules of employment, service rules, personnel regulations, etc., whether the employer is specifically and directly directed and supervised by the employer, whether the work hours and the place are designated by the employer and the place are detained by the employer, whether the worker has a substitute nature of the work, whether the worker has a basic pay or fixed wage, whether the contract has a characteristic of the work itself, whether the wage has a characteristic of the wage and salary income tax, whether the continuousness and degree of the employment relationship is exclusive to the employer, whether the status of the worker is recognized by other Acts and subordinate statutes, and the economic and social conditions of both parties, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do17.).