The judgment below

All parts of the judgment of dismissal against Defendant B, excluding the part of the judgment, shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the amount of wages payable to the employees of this case is specified as indicated in the list of crimes attached to the court below, and the representative I of the manpower office mediating the employees of this case paid wages to the employees of this case in advance to the employees of this case, on the basis of the part of the non-guilty part (of the violation of the Labor Standards Act against Defendant A and the part of the violation of the Labor Standards Act as to workers listed in Nos. 12, 13, and 23 attached to the court below's judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged on the contrary premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle, although the Defendants’ obligation to pay wages cannot be deemed extinguished.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a fine of KRW 500,000,000 for each of the Defendants) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

B. Defendant A(1) of the lower court’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the expression of non-original intent to punish Defendant B of the previous workers who committed crimes Nos. 1 through 11, and 14 through 22 of the crime table attached to the lower judgment, should be deemed to include the expression of non-original intent to punish Defendant A. Therefore, the judgment dismissing the prosecution against the above workers on the violation of the Labor Standards Act should be sentenced.

(2) As to the guilty portion of the facts, the wages for the instant workers were paid in full.

(3) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the charges (1) Defendant B is an employer who employs 23 full-time workers by obtaining a subcontract for the type work from D Co., Ltd. at the site of the construction of a new building in Osan-si.

The Defendant, from April 21, 2016 to May 29, 2016, set forth the wage of 2,550,000 won for workers E who worked at the above construction site from around April 21, 2016 and set forth in the list of crimes in the attached Form of the lower court.