The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The defendant does not pay a fine.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) expressed the intention that the injured person does not want punishment at the investigative agency, and thus, the judgment dismissing the charged facts of this case shall be rendered.

It is not so.

Even if the victim D worked in FF Co., Ltd. and retired on March 25, 2015, and received both wages and retirement allowances from the said Co., Ltd. on March 2015, and the Defendant Co., Ltd. did not succeed to the employment of the victims of F Co., Ltd., the validity of the instant labor contract shall be deemed to take effect from April 1, 2015. Since the instant wage calculation system or method is problematic, the instant wage amount cannot be recognized. As long as there is a dispute over the period of labor or the amount of wages, the instant wage amount shall not be paid intentionally in violation of the Labor Standards Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment ex officio was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for the crime of rape in the Seoul Southern District Court on August 12, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 21, 2017.

In addition, “The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act was added” in the applicable law, and since this Court permitted it and changed its subject to the adjudication, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained as it is.

3. Despite the above ex officio grounds for reversal as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to a trial by the party.

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal even in the lower court’s determination as to the ground for appeal. However, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel.