The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 50(3) of the Labor Standards Act, newly established February 1, 2012, provides that “In calculating work hours under paragraphs (1) and (2), the waiting time, etc. that an employee is under the direction and supervision of the employer shall be deemed work hours.” According to the foregoing provision, the cultural education hours in the facts charged in the instant case are within work hours, and the company newly established Article 30(2) of the collective agreement in 2012 to the effect that an employee would pay basic wages only for “the hours other than work hours” under the premise that the said cultural education hours are within work hours. Thus, the company has no obligation to pay wages to an employee for the hours of cultural education, which is an education within work hours.

2. In light of the legislative intent of Article 50(3) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 50(3) of the Labor Standards Act was newly established to the effect that, if an employee was under the direction and supervision of the employer by waiting for work, etc. even if the employee did not work, the employee shall be deemed to have paid due compensation. Article 6(1) of the collective agreement provides that “The working system is a two-time system per day and eight hours per day, on the basis of eight hours per day.” According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, a driver is recognized to have received cultural education by attending the working hours or on the day off duty of other employees, not within the working hours of the employee’s workplace. In light of the legislative intent of Article 50(3) of the Labor Standards Act, cultural education on the facts charged in the instant case, which was not performed within the working hours of the health class, constitutes “non-working hours” as provided by Article 30(2) of the collective agreement

Therefore, the court below's finding guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.