The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The hours of work under the Labor Standards Act refers to the hours that a person provides labor under the direction and supervision of an employer.

The court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court that convicted the security guards of the charges of this case on the ground that the security guards continued to stay in the first place of the guard, provide meals or locked, and do not have any alternative personnel, and did not have any choice but to perform the work during the break hours, taking full account of all the circumstances such as the waiting time, break time, rest time, etc. that a worker was not engaged in the work during the break hours and is not guaranteed the free use of workers (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41990, Nov. 23, 2006) and actually under the employer’s direction and supervision (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41990, Nov. 23, 2006). The court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court that convicted them of the charges of this case on the ground that the security guards continued to stay in the front place of the guard, which is the main business space, and did not have any choice but to perform the work during the break hours.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the hours of work and hours under the Labor Standards Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the facts contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.