The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that at least the defendant is in the position of joint operators of the company of this case together with G.

As long as it can be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was acquitted while recognizing the status of the employer under the Labor Standards Act, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant could not be seen as an employer or a person in charge of business management under the Labor Standards Act, while explaining in detail the grounds for determination as to whether the Defendant is an employer or a person in charge of business management under the Labor Standards Act.

In light of the records, there is no evidence that was additionally submitted and examined in the court below's judgment, and when examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the prosecutor's statement in G and E (G) cited as the main evidence for the facts charged of this case is difficult to credibility as it is because the defendant's interests conflict with each other. Thus, it does not seem that the court below's judgment was clearly erroneous or it is considerably unfair to maintain the court below's decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of the facts alleged by the prosecutor is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.