The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, H, I, K, L, and J (hereinafter “H, etc.”) is merely a conclusion of an employment contract with each school or a partnership business with the Defendant, and is not employed by the Defendant, despite the fact that the Defendant deceivings the Defendant as if the Defendant employed him/her, and the fact that the Defendant, even if he/she employed G in a regular manner from December 2006, by deceiving him/her as if he/she was employed on February 207, 2007, can be acknowledged.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. The key issue of this part of the facts charged is that the prosecutor prosecuteds the defendant rather than employing H, etc. but only engaging in the same business, and the defendant claims that H, etc. employed the defendant. As such, the key issue of this part of the facts charged is whether the employment relationship between the defendant and H, etc. exists between the defendant and the defendant. Determination of whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act is a contract for employment under the Civil Act or a contract for work. Determination of whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act is a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or a place of business, regardless of whether the form of the contract is an employment contract under the Civil Act or a contract for work, the contents of the work are determined by the employer, and whether the employer is subject to specific direction and supervision by the rules of employment or service (which is subject to the personnel regulations, etc., and is also designated by the employer, whether the worker is bound by working hours and place, whether the worker voluntarily employs a third party to perform the work by proxy, and whether the worker is the subject of remuneration itself.