The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding) D and E stated in each court below’s decision that “I did not have been notified that overtime allowances, etc. were included in the annual salary, and there was no response to overtime allowances, etc.,” and are credibility in light of the consistency of statements and the consistency with all other circumstances.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including this, cannot be deemed as proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt about the intention of the defendant to pay overtime allowance and night work allowance.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that there was an intention to pay overtime allowances and night work allowances to the Defendant, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted, namely, (i) management status of short-term contract positions under which D and E received wage at a time; (ii) the Defendant, while performing the work of allowing such employees to pay overtime allowances, appears to have not explicitly demanded or asked the Defendant to pay overtime allowances, etc.; and (iii) the Defendant’s witness F’s statement in the lower court, which deals with the duties similar to D and E, was known at the time of and at the time of entering into a labor contract, when considering the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that there was an intention to pay overtime allowances and night work allowances, solely with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, was insufficient to have proved to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt.

The above judgment of the court below is duly adopted and closely examined by comparison with the evidence. The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.