The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below convicting the defendant as to the facts charged in this case that he did not pay wages, etc. to E even though the defendant was not the employer who should pay wages, etc. as prescribed in Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts,

2. Determination

A. The main text of Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “an employer shall pay wages, compensations, and other money or valuables to a worker within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred if the worker dies or retires.” The term “employer” refers to a business owner, a person in charge of business management, or any other person who acts on behalf of the business owner with respect to matters relating to the worker.

(Article 2(1)2 of the Labor Standards Act).

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant constitutes “person in charge of business management” or “a person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to matters relating to workers,” and is an employer obligated to liquidate money and valuables, such as wages, to E pursuant to Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act.

1) F AD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) around January 2012

(2) At the same time, the Defendant, H, and D were to operate together, and the Defendant, as a director of D, owned 20% of his share and agreed to receive the benefit therefrom and participated in D’s management. (2) After that, D received a supply of a new factory construction project from K in Rocheon-si, Inc., and E served as the head of the site office at the construction site from June 20 to August 15, 2012.

3) On May 20, 2012 before commencing work as the site director, E was introduced F and the Defendant at the G’s office on May 20, 2012, and F and the Defendant agreed to appoint E as the site director and agreed to set E’s salary at KRW 4 million. 4 million thereafter.