The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was merely a worker who received monthly wages from H, and thus there is no obligation to pay wages as an employer of the victims of the instant case.

Even if the defendant is an employer, the defendant believed himself/herself as an employee, and there is a ground for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, and thus, the intention of violation of the Labor Standards Act cannot be acknowledged on the ground that there is a reasonable reason for the arrears of wages.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which found guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant, along with H, recognized that he/she was in the position of “employer” who is liable to pay wages to the instant workers who are victims, and that there is no reasonable ground for not paying wages, etc., and thus, was also recognized as an intentional crime.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

From July 2016, the Defendant asserts that he was to receive salary as H’s employee from July 2016.

However, the Defendant did not receive money from H on July 2016 in return for labor, except for the Defendant received KRW 3.6 million from H.

(H) Nevertheless, the Defendant made a statement that the said money was distributed in relation to the existing construction work. Nevertheless, the Defendant extended the construction work to H while performing the construction work at a construction site with H for at least one year from September 2017. On behalf of H, the Defendant issued a tax invoice under the name of the business entity operated by the Defendant.

In full view of these facts, H’s statement that there was a partnership business relationship to distribute construction proceeds later is more reliable than the Defendant’s statement that he was merely H’s employee.

Defendant’s claim against H for unpaid wages.