The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below acquitted the defendant on the premise that the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or legal principles), G, M, and N (hereinafter “G, etc.”) is a person under actual command and supervision of the defendant, but G, etc. cannot be deemed a worker under the Labor Standards Act. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In determining whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act, whether the contract is an employment contract under the Civil Act or a contract for work, regardless of the form of the contract, must be determined according to whether the worker provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages at the business or workplace.

In determining whether a dependent relationship exists, the contents of the work shall be determined by the employer, subject to the rules of employment, service regulations, personnel regulations, etc., which are specifically and directly directed and supervised by the employer in the course of performing the work, whether the employer is designated as working hours and place and is detained by the employer, whether the worker himself/herself is replaced by the work that he/she employs a third party, whether the worker owns equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc., whether the remuneration has the characteristic of the work itself, whether the basic salary or fixed wage has the nature of the work itself, whether the wage has the source of the income tax, whether the worker's status as an employee is recognized in accordance with other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Acts and subordinate statutes on the social security system, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9077, Nov. 15, 2012).

D..