All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since workers G were working in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles and at least three hours of recess a day, the Defendants paid G wages above the minimum wage amount.

Even if there is no intention to violate the Labor Standards Act or the Minimum Wage Act, even if not, the Defendants thought that the rest time was guaranteed to G and paid benefits.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of both the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Minimum Wage Act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

B. Each sentence of the lower court on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants asserted the same purport at the lower court. The lower court stated in its legal reasoning that “The working hours under the Labor Standards Act refer to the hours during which workers provide labor under a labor contract. Even if an employee does not work as a worker during the working hours, such hours do not guarantee the employee’s free use as a recess, and if the hours are actually under the employer’s direction and supervision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41990, Nov. 23, 2006)” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da4190, Nov. 23, 2006). In other words, G was lawfully adopted and investigated by the evidence of the lower court, i.e., i., i) was in exclusive charge of repair work from 10 p.m. to 10 p.m., from 24 hours restaurant operated by the Defendants (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).