The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding of the legal principles, given workers a rest of three hours from three to six hours at night, so that workers may be allowed to rest by allowing workers to freely take water in the closed space at the front of the guard.

Therefore, the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant did not have an obligation to pay additional wages during the hours because he did not grant workers a leave of absence, and thereby did not err by misapprehending the legal principles.

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

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. Work hours under the Labor Standards Act refer to the hours when a worker provides labor under the employer’s direction and supervision. Even if a worker is under work hours, such hours do not guarantee the worker’s free use as a part of work hours, but are actually under the employer’s direction and supervision (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41990, Nov. 23, 2006). (b) Taking full account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below and the trial court, it does not guarantee workers such as F and G to freely use hours at night, and is actually under the employer’s direction and supervision, so there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or legal principles as to the determination of the amount as stated in the facts charged of this case, and thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as above.

1) The apartment complex of Yeonsu-gu Incheon, where security guards, including F and G, worked, is separate for security guards.