The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, although there was no obligation to pay overtime pay to the above E, since the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant signed an employment contract with the representative director, D (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Company”) did not have any obligation to pay overtime pay. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the comprehensive wage system, which affected the conclusion

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, as the representative director of D Co., Ltd. in the instant facts charged, is an employer who runs the manufacturing of fire doors using 17 full-time workers. From September 1, 2010 to January 26, 2012, the Defendant worked for the aforementioned company as a driver (delivery) and did not pay 1,440,188 won, including overtime work allowances of 146,483 won on September 1, 2010 to retirement, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on extension of the due date of payment. 2) The lower court determined that the labor contract made between the Defendant Company and E, stated that the wage was paid in the monthly pay (1,40,000 won) as well as that there was no provision on overtime allowances, etc. ② that the Defendant’s superior’s work allowance was stated in the E-mail’s comprehensive contact with the Defendant Company, but it appears to have been included in the E-mail’s work allowance.