The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following: (a) A, a summary of the grounds for appeal, consistently states that the Defendant had performed his/her work; (b) the Defendant, who stated in an investigative agency that he/she was responsible for the decision on the number of employees, direction and supervision of duties, etc.; and (c) the Defendant led to the confession of all the crimes; and (d) the Defendant recognized the status of the employer before her husband D dies, and stated that “the Defendant would have been responsible for full payment as he/she would have paid off money”;

2. Evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and, in particular, Eul testified that the defendant was the husband D of the defendant, who was not the defendant (59-60 pages of the trial record) but the defendant was accused on January 4, 2018 on the ground of payment of wages, and stated that "if the defendant was investigated on January 24, 2018 by the Sung-nam Branch of the Central Employment and Labor Agency, the defendant was forced to do work because he was first sent to the same person (5 pages of the evidence record)," and "the defendant was unable to believe D with the fact that he was working on the basis of giving money (64 pages of the trial record)", the court below's determination of the court below is inconsistent with the above facts charged, and it is hard to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged by the prosecutor on the ground that it was not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal status of the enterpriser.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the part of the judgment below 16-17 "three construction-day workers" is for construction-day workers.