The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

The facts charged of this case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, Defendant 1 did not know at all that employee X, Y, and Z did not pay an annual paid leave allowance to workers, and did not have been involved in the decision to refuse to pay the annual paid leave allowance to the remaining 33 workers, ② did not know that employee G and H was unfairly deducted from the amount of wages during the paid leave hours, ③ did not have been involved in the decision to impose the disciplinary action for the period of four months of salary reduction. Thus, the Defendant did not have any intention on the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 2,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant refused to grant an approval to establish a club constitutes a labor union’s intervention in the organization and operation of the union due to the fact that the club to be established was composed solely of labor union members.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court (2,00,000 won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s Labor Standards Act and the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act as “employer” (hereinafter “Labor Union Act”) define “employer” as “employer, or a person in charge of business management, or any other person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to matters relating to workers,” and the Labor Standards Act imposes an employer’s obligation to pay wages, etc. for workers. The Labor Union Act also prescribes that the employer shall not engage in unfair labor practices.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, i.e., the Defendant external representative director of the company.