The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is that if the minimum wage is set based on the prescribed working hours under the wage agreement, the need for ordinary taxi transport workers to endeavor to stabilize their lives and improve their working conditions may eventually result in social harm caused by unreasonable operation. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret the contractual working hours not limited to the prescribed working hours clause in the wage agreement.

In the above interpretation, the court below acquitted the Defendant of all the facts charged of this case, but it erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court determined the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the records of this case: (a) Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Minimum Wage Act provides that “the amount calculated by dividing the monthly paid hours by the number of contractual working hours per week, per month,” and (b) Article 6(4)2 of the Minimum Wage Act defines “the prescribed working hours under Article 2(1)7 of the Labor Standards Act” to mean “the prescribed working hours under the Labor Standards Act; (c) the prescribed working hours under the Labor Standards Act by dividing the paid hours by the number of contractual working hours per week, per month, by the number of contractual working hours per month; and (d) the paid hours by the number of contractual working hours under Article 50, the main sentence of Article 69, or Article 46 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act to mean the minimum working hours per month; and (d) the paid hours under the Labor Standards Act by the number of contractual working hours under the Labor Standards Act to the extent of the paid hours per month; and (d) the paid hours by the employer.”