The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there is no reasonable ground to dispute the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., so the defendant is found to have the intent to violate the Labor Standards Act.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case, and the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that it did not prove the facts charged for the detailed reasons under the title of "not guilty portion". The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

[Inasmuch as wages to workers are to be paid in full to workers, it would not be offset against workers’ wage claims with loans or claims arising out of tort except for over-paid claims, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do4343, Jul. 11, 2017). However, in light of the following: (a) the conversation between the Defendant and D on December 14, 2017; (b) the details of the conversation between the Defendant and D; (c) the details of the statement of payment; and (d) the amount of wages paid to the Defendant on December 30, 2017; and (d) the amount of wages paid to D around December 30, 2017; and (b) the fact that D requested the Defendant to offset against the Defendant on December 30, 2017 and consulted with the Defendant on such amount, there is room to deem that there was an agreement between the Defendant and D regarding the payment of wages (i.e., unilateral offset and free will not be allowed.

Supreme Court Decision 200Da51544 Decided November 7, 2001 see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51544 Decided November 7, 2001.