The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, there is a practice to determine whether to employ workers after a period of one month has passed, and F has been aware of such practice in the field of work in C market even before the end, and F is a person employed for a fixed period of not more than two months or a worker employed on probation, and thus F is excluded from the pre-determination system under the Labor Standards Act.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Labor Standards Act. Thus, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court’s judgment 1) acknowledged by the record as follows, namely, ① to use the Defendant’s labor contract with F for one month at the time of concluding the labor contract with F.

It does not mean, ② the Defendant did not set the F working period at the time when the Defendant entered into an employment contract with F, ③ the F was aware of the practice of setting the training period for one month when the Defendant employs workers in the said C market at the time of entering into an employment contract with F.

Comprehensively taking account of the absence of evidence to see, it was determined that F does not constitute a worker employed or a worker employed on probation for a fixed period of not more than two months.

2) Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with records, the above judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the Defendant agreed with the victimized employee in the first instance, the Defendant did not have any same criminal record, and the Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc. are shown in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime.