All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Defendant A’s mistake of facts, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and failing to prepare a labor contract, the employer who bears criminal liability should be deemed an actual offender.

D The actual manager of the D is Defendant B, and E is an employee of H Co., Ltd. (joint representative director: Defendant A’s husband, Defendant B, and hereinafter “H”) who runs the large discount store business, not an employee of the real estate rental business operator who does not employ full-time workers. Therefore, Defendant A was not fully involved in the recruitment of E and the payment of wages.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) If Defendant A’s factual misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine directly participated in the company’s management as the president of the company, the company constitutes an employer under the Labor Standards Act even if it is not a nominal representative director (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do813, Nov. 11, 1997). Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, Defendant A may sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant A is an employer of E.

Therefore, Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

① In the application for formal trial, the Defendants stated to the effect that “worker E was admitted to D, and had been employed as a daily worker at a D site located in Gwangju City from October 1, 2015 to December 23, 2015 (the trial record page 25),” the Defendants stated that “F, a Defendant’s counterpart employee, is an employee of D in the currency with the labor supervisor (the nine pages of the investigation record). E will work at the Defendant’s request when investigating the labor supervisor.