The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the public prosecution regarding the violation of each labor standard law at least 6 to 9 times each year of the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty each of the following facts: (a) as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act at least 1 to 5, 10, 11, and 12 in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment; and (b) as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act at the time of each of the instant facts charged; and (c)

Therefore, since the defendant and the prosecutor's rejection part of the public prosecution which did not appeal is separate and finalized depending on the expiration of the appeal period, the court shall decide only on the acquittal part of the judgment below.

2. The grounds for appeal do not clearly distinguish between the representative and the actual representative in the name of the defendant's family as the business body operated by the defendant's family members. The defendant transferred money to the defendant's cooperative, the defendant's interview was held by employees, and the defendant's participation in the business of the above cooperative could not be considered as a simple nominal lender by receiving approximately five million won per month in the actual situation due to the close attendance at work. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant is a representative in the name of the above cooperative.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the circumstances such as the statement of the court below, i.e., the employee E is a person who should be responsible for the defendant's name as a representative.

He received work instructions from H, but thought that he was in the position of the chief of the prime office who conducts ordinary work instructions, and that the representative does not need to direct his work, and that the defendant should be responsible for the unpaid monthly pay, as he was a family business entity, and that he should be responsible for the unpaid monthly pay.”