The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts that the defendant was not a worker B, even though he was employed by the defendant on the condition that he received KRW 400,000 per day from the defendant and served a business trip in the Portland.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, that: (a) B is an individual entrepreneur engaged in the automatic control system; (b) B appears to have entered into a contract between the Defendant to manufacture the electric control tower and receive the payment; (c) B appears to have been included in a contract to manufacture and supply the electric control tower; and (d) the Defendant’s circumstance shows that B, due to the Defendant’s failure to drive at home and made a business trip to Luxembourg, would have received KRW 400,000 per day from the Defendant as an overseas exit equipment; (d) it appears to have been in charge of the installation and trial operation of the electric control tower board, and (b) it appears to have been in the position of the Defendant to have been in charge of the production and supply of the electric control team to the Defendant on the ground that B was in the position of the Defendant who was in charge of the production and supply of the electric control tower, and (b) it appears to have not been in the position of the party to the contract.

B. The above judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's judgment, i.e., the witness G of the party executive branch with the witness G is a worker employed by the defendant through the manpower company, but B was an electrical engineer who the defendant was aware of and was in full charge of the electrical installation work.