The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and the number of employees of the instant case are those employed by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff has no obligation to pay wages to the said employees.

In addition, since the agreement to pay wages in the LASI, the defendant is not guilty or intentional in violation of the Labor Standards Act, or the defendant cannot expect lawful acts in light of social norms.

In addition, the defendant is not a representative director or an actual manager of the LAD, and is not an employer under the Labor Standards Act.

Even if the duty to pay wages is recognized, the amount is not more than 7.8 million won in total. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged in this case or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In an improper preliminary determination of sentencing, the punishment sentenced by the court below (1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Determination of the assertion of non-existence of wage payment obligation, intentional illegality, and liability mediation, the lower court affirmed the Defendant’s claim that the Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s request and received instructions from the Defendant to the point of view that (i) on July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the LA for a new construction project in the amount of KRW 835 million, such as civil engineering works, among the new construction projects, and (ii) the LA had the Plaintiff execute the construction project by employing H as the site manager under the Defendant’s recommendation and joint and several guarantee; (ii) the Plaintiff, the representative of the instant workers, by indicating the business owner “D and A”, filed a complaint with the Defendant for a violation of the Labor Standards Act, and (iii) was consistently inserted into the site by the Defendant

It is stated that the defendant made a statement, and ③ the defendant made a decision on the site entry of the trees in the course of the investigation by the labor supervisor.

J is the representative director, but it will be legally responsible for the overall interest of the major shareholders of the LABD.

directors of K. K.O.