The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant prepared and delivered the F-related employment contract, but the F refused to do so, there was no criminal intent in violation of the Labor Standards Act.

B. The F agreed to receive benefits based on the performance record between the Defendant and the Defendant, and as it has independent personnel authority, it cannot be deemed as an employee performing duties under the direction and supervision of the Defendant.

C. The actual employment of F is not that of the Defendant but that of F, the Defendant is not the employer of F.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, although the witness G at the court below requested the company W to prepare and request the F labor contract, the above company can be recognized as having stated that the above request was not complied with, and the statement that F refused to prepare the labor contract was made before the defendant, and there is no evidence to support the fact that F refused to prepare the labor contract as the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to support that F refused to prepare the labor contract.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The term “worker” under the Labor Standards Act refers to a person who provides labor to a business or workplace for the purpose of wages regardless of the type of occupation (Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act), and whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act should be determined in accordance with whether a labor provider provided labor to an employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages to a business or workplace, rather than whether a contract is

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da77706 Decided December 11, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances, which may be recognized by the evidence above, were agreed between the Defendant and the Defendant to work for a maximum of 40 hours per week, namely, ① the Defendant’s annual salary of 26 million, and accordingly, the record of attendance was prepared as a list.