The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the Prosecutor’s appeal is that the Defendant entered into a contract with G for the instant remodelling work, and that the Defendant received F and F introductions, in sequence, employed for daily work at the construction site of this case.

G paid wages directly to the above workers.

Even if the defendant could not pay the material cost smoothly, and the above workers expressed the color of the additional work, thereby G promised to pay wages verbally, and thus, G bears the civil liability for the obligation to pay wages. Accordingly, the defendant's employer status and criminal liability for the obligation to pay wages are not denied.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the payment of wages related to the additional construction works is erroneous in mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is an individual constructor who, while residing under the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building and underground 5, used four daily workers at the work site of remodeling a hospital located in the militaryposi, and performed human interior works.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Provided, That the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was from September 5, 2012 to the above construction site.

9. By September 20, 201, C’s work as daily employed workers and retired as of September 1, 2012, including KRW 1,700,000 of the retirement worker’s retirement as well as KRW 3,80,000,00 of the retirement worker’s wages, were not paid for 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of the due date.

B. As to the lower judgment’s determination, the lower court from September 3, 2012 to the lower court.

9.6. Until June.