The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In accordance with a labor contract, the Defendant provided hours of recess to workers D, and the fee collection was a unmanned electronic system, and the beverage food is sold to a self-market, and the Defendant did not have a lot of people. Therefore, there was no obligation to pay wages for recess hours, and there was no fact that there was no wage corresponding to recess hours as shown in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court, on the following grounds, found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged, on the ground that the rest time alleged by the Defendant to provide workers D constitutes work hours under the employer’s direction and supervision.

① Workers D relatively and consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that “Although they had a rest time of 10 percent per hour, they were fluoring a fluoring at a place that would have been seen as having a fluoring, they were fluoring out of the rest time, and they could not go out of the rest time or incur a bruing, and they had to go to or fluord by a customer.”

② D, while serving as a mixed person from 08:00 to 16:00, mainly engaged in store management, such as cleaning and customer reception stand, at rest time, D appears to have provided meals or made rest in a seat, etc. which is mainly the main business space, or the seat, etc. which is not used by a carter or customer.

③ Since D did not have other substitute workers, it seems difficult to refuse to accept the demand of customers, etc., if there is a duty to respond to the demand of customers.

④ 24. 24.