The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts, misunderstanding the legal principles, and the comprehensive wage agreement between the Defendant and B, and even if there were no extended allowances and night allowances payable to B, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The comprehensive wage agreement by implied agreement was established even though the purport of the inclusive wage is not specified in the relevant legal doctrine organization agreement, the rules of employment, and the labor contract

In order to be recognized, there is an agreement between an employer and an employee to choose not to pay an additional allowance, other than a fixed monthly wage or daily wage, or not to pay a specific allowance, in light of various circumstances, such as working hours and the type or level of advanced wage, etc., where it is difficult to accurately calculate the actual working hours due to the unique characteristics of the form of work, or where a certain extension, night, or holiday work is anticipated, etc.

In an objective case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1060, Oct. 13, 2016). (b) The Defendant denied the instant facts charged by asserting that it is similar to that of the first instance court at the lower court. However, the lower court, under the circumstances stated in its reasoning,: (a) the Defendant: (b) drafted a salary statement in which the basic salary was 2.5 million won at the time of paying monthly salary; and (c) the Defendant and B did not prepare an explicit labor contract on the comprehensive wage system; and (d) there was no agreement on basic salary between the Defendant and B, or there was a comprehensive wage agreement between the Defendant and B.

It is difficult to see

The facts charged of this case are determined and convicted.