The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that when the defendant puts two-day work and two-day work hours per week under the two-day work and two-day work hours per week under the two-day work period per workplace as stated in the judgment of the court below, work hours per week, and forty-two-hour work hours per week are repeated. The first week exceeds forty-eight hours per week, which are flexible work hours under Article 51(1) of the Labor Standards Act, but the excess falls under the extended work hours under Article 53(2) of the same Act.

Ultimately, the Defendant may be deemed to have complied with the provisions of Article 51(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and the flexible working hour system in the workplace of the Defendant is valid.

Even if such flexible working time system is not effective,

Even though it is difficult to recognize intentional violation of the Labor Standards Act in light of various circumstances at the time, the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The Defendant, as a representative of social welfare foundation E located in Ansan-gu D when he was aware of the facts charged, is an employer who operates a child rearing facility.

Defendant did not pay the total of KRW 19,67,083 of the wages of two workers (F, G) within 14 days from the date on which the grounds for payment occurred, as stated in the attached crime sight table, as well as KRW 313,414 of F, who worked in the above workplace from July 10, 200 to December 31, 2015, as well as KRW 19,667,083 of F, who worked in the above workplace from July 10, 202 to December 31, 2015.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) Defendant F and G worked for 56 hours at the workplace of Defendant F and G in a specific week; and (b) this exceeds 48 hours as stipulated in the proviso of Article 51(1) of the Labor Standards Act; (c) thus, flexible working hour system in force at the workplace of Defendant F and G is null and void; (d) Defendant F and G’s respective statutory statements, personal benefit details, correction instructions, and response to the request for confirmation of the contents of the correction orders, respectively, are invoked as evidence.