The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is merely the chief executive officer of M&A and employment of the instant workers is H or its director, who is the representative director of M&A, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the Defendant’s representative and M& companies entered into a subcontract agreement of KRW 1.6 million with respect to the replacement and construction finishing work of the windows of the D Elementary School, F Elementary School, etc. (No. 100 of the Investigation Records) and the Defendant’s remainder of subcontract payment from M&A to the Defendant on September 17, 2010 (No. 46 of the Investigation Records), the Defendant cannot be trusted the Defendant’s lawsuit that is merely the president of M&A; ② the original witness I stated in the court of the court of the court below that the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant started working at an elementary school in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (No. 80 of the Trial Records); ③ the Defendant was jointly and severally liable for the Defendant’s wages to the Defendant and M&A’s employees in criminal cases against H and L at the site of fraud; ④ The Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the Defendant’s wages from M&A’s subcontractor.

In light of the fact that the defendant cannot be deemed to be merely a worker employed by M company even if he/she was ordered to work or received a work order, the facts charged of this case is reasonable based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.