The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant alleged the misapprehension of the legal principles had engaged in the ginseng cultivation business for the same father as the victims as necessary, the Defendant’s workplace is not always employed by the employees, and the Defendant’s workplace is not subject to the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Since the victims of mistake of fact-finding assertion that F and I paid wages to F and I in around 2008 and completed the settlement of accounts, it is unclear whether the overdue wages did not remain and thereafter, the Defendant’s work in the ginseng field is unclear.

C. The lower court’s sentence on the ground of unfair sentencing (hereinafter “fine 1,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the term "business or workplace which employs five or more workers" under Article 10 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, which sets the scope of application of the Labor Standards Act, refers not to a business or workplace with five or more regular employees, but to the "business or workplace with five or more regular employees". In this case, the term "regularly" refers to a situation where the number of workers is less than five, and it is objectively determined according to social norms, even if the number of workers is less than five, it constitutes five or more persons in a state. In addition, the female workers include not only the continuous workers in the workplace but also the daily workers employed for their needs at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do1243, Mar. 14, 200);