The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant paid the worker an amount short of the minimum wage as wages, taking account of the gist of the grounds for appeal:

There is no intention to violate the minimum wage law, and there is intention to violate the minimum wage law.

Although it is impossible to determine a person, the lower court convicted the Defendant.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

(1) On June 10, 2010, the limited partnership D (hereinafter “the instant taxi company”) operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant taxi company”) decided to withhold the application of the Minimum Wage Act to its employees under the agreement, and subsequently agreed on the number of hours of work, and revised the rules of employment to the effect that the fixed number of hours of work would be applied retroactively to July 1, 2010 (hereinafter “amended rules of employment”). Accordingly, the instant taxi company entered into a wage agreement with its employees to reduce the number of hours of work to 3 hours and 40 minutes on April 2012.

Examining the wages paid to workers from July 1, 2010 to March 31, 2012, the defendant calculated the minimum wage based on the revised rules of employment and the prescribed working hours under the wage agreement, and the defendant paid the employees as wages in excess of the minimum wage.

may be seen.

(2) According to the application of the Minimum Wage Act, the majority of the taxi companies have reduced the prescribed working hours, and the instant taxi company also maintained the existing wages of its employees and has reduced only the prescribed working hours, the amended rules of employment do not constitute disadvantageous changes to employees.

Therefore, the revised rules of employment did not consent to the employees.

Even if the revised rules of employment are valid.

2. The lower court’s judgment is modified by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated: