The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.2 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the portion unpaid of wages against B, etc. which was acquitted of the mistake of facts based on objective evidence, such as the output log, etc., and found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant did not pay the portion within 14 days from the date of each retirement which was the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment without agreement between the parties concerned.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of 1.2 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Articles 44-2 and 109 of the Labor Standards Act provide that where a subcontract has been made twice or more in construction business, if a subcontractor who is not a constructor under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry fails to pay wages to his/her employees, an immediate upper tier contractor of the subcontractor shall be jointly and severally liable with the subcontractor to pay wages to workers employed by the subcontractor, and shall punish the immediately upper tier contractor who violates this provision and shall not be prosecuted against the explicit will of workers.

The purpose of this is to impose liability on a subcontractor when such risk has been realized due to a subcontractor's failure to perform his/her duty to pay wages, by committing an illegal act committed against a person whose financial capacity, etc. for construction work is not verified because he/she was not registered as a construction business.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8417, Nov. 12, 2015). B.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the claim under the name of the said employee in the Suwon District Court for the violation of the Labor Standards Act against Workers B, C, D, E, F, and G on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the claim under the name of the said employee was dismissed.