The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court determined that I, who was newly appointed by the representative director after the Defendant’s resignation from the representative director, was the actual employer.

However, in full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant was in the actual employer's position at the time of his retirement.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the user who employs 17 full-time workers as the representative director of D Co., Ltd. located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and operates software development business.

1) The Defendant in violation of the Labor Standards Act did not pay 44,832,705 won, total wages of 13 retired workers, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on extension of the due date for payment between the parties concerned, as stated in attached Table 1, 3 through 5, 7 through 10, 12 through 16, including the total wages of 45,000,000 won in May through July 201, 201 of E, who retired from office as working from the above workplace from May 1, 2009 to July 31, 2012, as well as the wages of 45,00,000 won in July 20, 2012.

In addition to the non-payment of KRW 10,002,740 for the retirement pay of the above E, the retirement pay of KRW 189,572,738 for the total amount of 12 retirement allowances of the retired workers as stated in the attached Table 2 Nos. 1, 3 through 5, 7 through 9, 11 through 15 in the judgment of the court below was not paid within 14 days from the date of the retirement without any agreement on the extension of the due date

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the record on the assertion that the Defendant was not liable to pay wages, etc. to workers since December 201, since the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) was not in the position of the Plaintiff and the employer.