The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the gist of the grounds for appeal (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below), a copy of the minutes containing different contents concerning the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives on September 8, 201, which was submitted; the effect of the resolution was not at the time of the above resolution; the contents of the resolution in the apartment bulletin board were not at issue; and the contents of the resolution in the above resolution were already announced on the apartment bulletin board; and the fact that the impeachment bonus was already paid based on the above resolution, the above resolution cannot be deemed to constitute

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court determined that workers C’ wages of 438,880 won (the wage of 645,000 won as of February 2, 2012) (the wage of 1,293,880 won as of February 2, 2012 - the advance payment of 1,50,000 won), workers E’s annual bonus of 52,000 won, and F’s annual bonus of 417,000 won as of February 2012, 2012, G’s annual bonus of 408,000 won, and H’s bonus of 405,000 won as of February 2012, 2012, and H’s bonus of 150,450,450 won as of December 150, 20, and 2012, or acquitted the facts of the legal doctrine as to bonuses of 50,305,000 won.

2. Where there are grounds for dispute over the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., it shall be deemed that there exists a considerable reason for the employer to not pay wages, etc., and it is difficult to find that the employer had an intention to commit a violation of Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there are grounds for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. should be determined in light of all the circumstances at the time of dispute over the grounds for the employer’s refusal of payment, the grounds for the employer’s obligation to pay wages, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the purpose of its business, and the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc., and it shall not be readily concluded that the employer has the intention to commit a violation of Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, on the ground that the employer has the civil liability for payment ex post facto,