The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Articles 44-2 and 109 of the Labor Standards Act provide that if a subcontractor who is not a constructor under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry fails to pay wages to workers he/she employs, a subcontractor shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of wages to workers employed by the subcontractor and a subcontractor shall be punished, and a public prosecution shall not be instituted against the explicit will of the worker.

The purpose of this is to impose liability on a subcontractor when the risk is realized due to a subcontractor's failure to perform his/her duty to pay wages, by committing an illegal act committed against a person whose financial capacity, etc. for construction work is not verified due to a lack of registration of construction business, thereby causing abstract risk on the subcontractor's failure to pay wages.

(The Constitutional Court Order 2013Hun-Ga12 Decided April 24, 2014). However, a direct contractor bears the above responsibilities due to the subcontractor’s failure to pay wages even if it is not directly attributable to himself/herself, and where a subcontractor performs his/her obligation to pay wages, the subcontractor is also exempted from liability. Ultimately, the existence or scope of liability depending on the subcontractor’s act is determined depending on the subcontractor’s act, and the subcontractor’s failure to obtain an opportunity to participate in the process of agreement between the subcontractor and his/her employee may be exempted from punishment by his/her employee’s expression of intent; however, there are few possibilities that a direct contractor may not explicitly expressly express his/her wish not to punish the subcontractor; furthermore, a subcontractor receives wages from the subcontractor or is exempted from the subcontractor’s obligation.