The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant is the "person who acts on behalf of the employer with respect to the matters concerning workers" under the Labor Standards Act, and the defendant does not constitute a violation of the Labor Standards Act even though he is the employer. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Article 110 subparag. 1, Articles 78(1), and 79(1) of the Labor Standards Act are employers. Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the term “employer” refers to a business owner, a person in charge of business management, and other persons who act on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters relating to workers.

The term "business owner" refers to the business owner who operates a business, and the term "person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters concerning workers" refers to a person who is granted certain authority and responsibility from the business owner with respect to the determination of working conditions, such as personnel affairs, wages, welfare, labor management, etc., or orders, direction, or supervision over the business

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5984 Decided October 9, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Do15915 Decided June 11, 2015, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do15915, Oct. 9,

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the defendant constitutes "employer" under Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem the defendant as an employer as a person who acts on behalf of the employer with respect to "C" stone construction (hereinafter "the construction of this case"), which is an employee, in relation to "C" construction in Yangsan-si, Yangyang-si, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not constitute a violation of the Labor Standards Act is just and acceptable, and it is erroneous for the court below to mislead the facts