The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal is consistent with G’s statement that the Defendant worked from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court for a period of 82.5 days at the work site of repair work in F.D., which is being executed by the Defendant, and also accords with G’s statement.

Nevertheless, the court below found not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that G's statement and statement of payment of daily work cost is not reliable. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the employer who employs six full-time workers and operates a housing construction business, etc. as the representative director D (main director) of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building 403.

The defendant from March 19, 2012 to the same year.

7. By March 30, 2012, the above company worked at the construction site for the renovation and repair of the E E-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and did not pay 12,375,000 won including the total of 450,000 won for retired workers G in March 2012, wage of 1,80,000 won in April of the same year, wage of 3,150,000 won in May of the same year, wage of 3,750,000 won in June of the same year, and wage of 3,225,000 won in July of the same year, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case on the ground that there is no credibility on the grounds that the G’s statement consistent with the facts charged and the statement on the payment of daily work cost in line with the entry ledger of the military unit was significantly different from 3

① At the original court’s court, H verified the statement of payment of the cost of daily work for the victim, but it is not confirmed by comparing it with the Ministry of Labor on the basis of the real output report, rather than by considering that it was brought to the victim.