The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is the same year from April 23, 2013 by the defendant.

6. In full view of the fact that the Defendant remitted wages to E by August, 200, and the Defendant promised to pay part of the unpaid wages at the investigation stage, the Defendant can sufficiently be recognized that he had employed the instant workers and was in the position to pay the unpaid wages.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on the grounds that it is difficult to view the Defendant as a principal agent to pay wages by concluding a direct labor contract with 12 workers including E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the steel team leader of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”)’s 12 workers, including E in the court below’s decision, are employed by F. However, the defendant introduced the above workers to F and introduced them to F. The main day of this work is:

The defendant stated that he was aware of the payment of wages to the above workers via the defendant, and ② E from April 23, 2013 to April 23, 2013 to the same year.

6. The receipt of wages by the time of August, 200, KE again stated L and M in the original judgment, but it appears K in light of the Defendant’s statement and the details of bank account in the name of E.

It stated that K has remitted money to the employees, and even according to the transaction details of bank accounts in the name of E, E can be confirmed that it received the money from the Defendant and remitted money to K. In addition, E also includes itself in the original judgment.