The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since a daily holiday allowance is included in the daily holiday allowance that the Defendant paid to D pursuant to the comprehensive wage agreement that was explicitly concluded between the Defendant and D by mistake of facts, the lower court determined that there was no comprehensive wage agreement, including weekly holiday allowance, between the Defendant and D, and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case.

B. In light of the legal principles, even if the Defendant did not have a comprehensive wage agreement, including weekly holiday allowance, even if there is no comprehensive wage agreement between D, D, a daily worker, cannot be deemed as a beneficiary of weekly holiday allowance, and thus, D, a daily worker, is obligated to pay weekly holiday allowance, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the instant

2. Prior to the determination of the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, we examine ex officio.

A. In a case where there is a ground for dispute over the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., the employer should be deemed to have a reasonable ground for failing to pay wages, etc., and it is difficult to acknowledge that the employer had an intent to commit a crime of violating Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there is a ground for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. should be determined in light of all the circumstances at the time of dispute over the grounds for refusal of payment, the grounds for the employer’s obligation to pay wages, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the purpose of its business, and the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc., and it should not be determined ex post facto that the employer has the intent to commit a crime of Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do14693, Oct. 27, 2011; 205Do1089, Jun.

Judgment

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court.