All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact mistake and misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that the law applicable to this case is erroneous in the summary of the oral argument, which was made on March 17, 2017, but this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, following the assertion that was made after the submission period for the reasons for appeal.

A) According to the agreement with K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”), N was transferred from K to M on September 9, 201 to M in accordance with the agreement.

Accordingly, since the employment relationship between N and K is cut off, the defendant is not obliged to pay N any annual paid leave allowance and retirement allowance to N.

B) Even if the Defendant was a worker of K, the Defendant did not pay an annual paid leave allowance and retirement allowance on the ground that the Defendant considered N as a worker of M due to the foregoing circumstances. Therefore, there was no intention to do so.

C) Even if the Defendant’s obligation to pay the annual paid leave allowance and retirement allowance is recognized, the unpaid amount should be calculated on the basis of the amount paid by the Defendant from K.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable because the sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principle as to the portion of a crime without fault) merely uses the legal personality of the defendant to employ a worker in the form of a disguised contract, and thus, the actual fact is the same as that of the defendant directly employed I, and the contract between the defendant and I is deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's act of not paying annual paid leave allowances and retirement allowances to I constitutes a violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion 1) Regarding whether the Defendant is obliged to pay wages and retirement allowances to N, and whether the Defendant’s intent is recognized, the relevant legal doctrine is prior to the previous company.