The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following circumstances, F is an employee who actually provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the Defendant’s workplace for the purpose of earning wages at the workplace operated by the Defendant. However, the lower court’s judgment did not recognize F’s worker status, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

F The defendant and C entered the company E engaged in the clothes sales business, and the F had an implied agreement to make monthly salary of 1.5 million won on the premise of the wages of women.

B. Since the management of MF work requires expertise and has a unique authority to determine the F in charge of that work, and there are occupational characteristics that may not be employed in the E office of a stock company, the management of MF work shall not be denied on the basis of these circumstances.

C. The Defendant directed F to individual business instructions.

2. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). Comprehensively taking account of the health stand in relation to the instant case, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the statement at H’s trial court, the lower court’s respective circumstances are acknowledged on the ground of innocence.

According to these circumstances, F is difficult to see that the Defendant was given specific and direct command and supervision, and it is also the Defendant.