The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. There is an agreement between the Defendant and C as to the payment of labor cost solely on the fact that the Defendant received once labor cost from C, the summary of the grounds for appeal

According to the fact that it is difficult to see that the contractor is receiving labor costs while working at another construction site and claiming labor costs to the contractor, etc., the defendant is recognized to have obtained labor costs by deceiving and receiving labor costs in the name of G and H, even though there is no labor cost payment agreement.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case, and the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was requested by C to carry out the construction site painting and waterproof construction work.

On January 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the office of E Co., Ltd. located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building 602; (b) received a request for F-site painting from C; and (c) received payment of KRW 25,397,714 as a total amount of G and H wage from February 16, 2015 to receive KRW 25,397,714 as G and H wage, even though G and H did not have worked as a human father at the above construction site; and (d) submitted the wage payment register as if G and H were to work as a human father; and (e) obtained it from C as if G and H were to work as a human father.

B. The lower court determined: (a) the Defendant submitted to C a wage payment statement on July 2013, 201, stating his name in relation to FF construction work, and received KRW 6,50,000,00 for labor cost; (b) the account number of his wife and son’s name in the wage payment statement at the time when the Defendant demanded labor cost in his wife and son’s name; and (c) the Defendant entered the account number in his name and son’s name in the wage payment statement for the same period.