The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant entered into a contract for roof Repair Works with D, and the Defendant did not have any specific direction and supervision with D, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute an employer liable to pay compensation for medical treatment or compensation for suspension of work with D, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of facts constituting a violation of each Labor Standards Act, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining whether a contract constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, regardless of whether the contract is an employment contract or a contract for work under the Civil Act, or whether the contract is in substance a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages in the business or workplace.

In determining whether a dependent relationship exists, the contents of duties shall be determined by an employer, subject to the rules of employment, service regulations, personnel regulations, etc., which are specifically and directly directed and supervised by the employer in the course of performing duties, whether the employer is designated working hours and places and is detained by the employer, whether the employee is replaced by his/her duties, whether he/she owns equipment, raw materials, work tools, etc., whether his/her remuneration has the characteristic of work itself, whether the remuneration has the nature of work itself, whether there is a basic salary or fixed wage, and other matters concerning remuneration, such as whether the wage has the nature of work itself, whether there is a withholding tax on wage and salary income, the continuity and degree of the labor provision to the employer, and the social security system.