The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) Defendant A and B conspired to make a false statement that: (b) Defendant A was summoned by the labor supervisor of the H, J, and L branch office of the Korea Labor Agency in Gwangju-gu upon request for summons from the labor supervisor of the competent branch office of the Korea Labor Agency in Gwangju-gu on November 9, 2010; (c) the above subcontractor was closed on April 5, 2011 and June 13, 2011; and (b) Defendant A, upon request from the labor supervisor of the branch office of the Korea Labor Agency in Gwangju-gu, made a false statement that the actual business owner is no longer in progress at the place of business; and (c) Defendant A, upon request from the supervisor of the labor supervisor of the Korea Labor Agency in Gwangju-gu (hereinafter “C”); and (d) Defendant B, upon receipt of a false confirmation request from the supervisor of the labor office of the Korea Labor Agency in Gwangju-do, made a false statement with respect to the above Defendant C’s replacement or substitute payment.

B. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found Defendant A guilty of all the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that the submission of a false statement and false fact-finding document constitutes “the false report” under Article 28 subparag. 2 of the former Guarantee of Wage Claim Security Act.

(c)

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

1) First of all, the meaning of the language and text used in the law must comply with the definition of the pertinent law, if any, or not.