The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding the legal principles, for security guards, designated the office of senior citizens, the management office, or the office of the management office in the apartment complex of this case as a resting place, and allowed the said security guards to take rest time at the rest time by specifying in writing the time of closure when concluding a labor contract with the said security guards.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the premise that the above rest time is included in working hours is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (7 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the following grounds: (a) the lower court’s determination on the ground of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine; and (b) the lower court stated under the title “Judgment on the argument that the amount recorded in the crime constitutes a recess time.”

A) Labor hours under the Labor Standards Act refer to the hours when a worker provides labor under the direction and supervision of an employer. Even if a worker is under work hours, such hours do not guarantee the free use of an employee as a part of work hours, but are actually under work hours under the employer’s direction and supervision (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41990, Nov. 23, 2006). Therefore, if a worker fails to perform a practical work outside the middle between work and work, he/she is specifically required to leave from actual work, and leave from work in time and place, and an employee is free to do so.