The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “D”) did not employ five workers, including G, nor introduced it to M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”).

Even so, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant was liable to pay wages.

On July 29, 2016, the Defendant asserted that M paid all unpaid wages by paying more than 1,410,000 won to retired workers'O in excess of 1,200,000 won.

However, there is a doubt as to whether the unpaid wage was paid in excess of the amount of wages, and even if it is true, since O retired and paid on July 29, 2016, 14 days later, it does not affect the establishment of crime.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court determined that the Defendant had employed the above workers.

In light of the following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justified.

① It is recognized that M paid wages directly to workers involved in the instant work.

In that sense, M appears to have continued the appearance of M as if it was paid for the construction work in M because it was subject to the regulation of the relevant laws and regulations and ordered a lump sum subcontract to D (the 80th page of the trial record). ② D was in charge of the role of managing workers who will carry out the instant construction work and directly supplying and supplying materials (the 108th page of the trial record).

The construction cost was disbursed by M to issue the tax invoice (the page 85 pages of the trial record) upon delivery of D transaction statement. ③ At the court below, I appeared as a witness and agreed to receive wages from D at the time of entry into the instant construction work.