The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below rendered a full acquittal, even though the facts charged can be fully acknowledged, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant, as the representative director of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu D and the second floor E (hereinafter “instant company”), was an employer who runs chartered bus transportation business using 30 full-time workers, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 10,358,893, in total, retired from the said workplace during the period from February 1, 1996 to December 31, 2013, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

3. The lower court and the lower court determined as follows: (a) there was an organization agreement and wage agreement between the Defendant and F and its affiliated engineers on the payment of wages for a certain period of extended work hours in consideration of the characteristics of the service of operating tourist buses; and (b) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant is liable to pay overtime work allowances to F.

It is difficult to see that the annual leave allowances are replaced by the annual paid leave days pursuant to the organization agreement, and the evidence submitted alone has the intention to pay the unpaid leave allowances to the defendant.

It is difficult to conclude that there was an intention to pay retirement allowances calculated on the basis of the dispute over the amount of the above allowances, so long as there was an intention to do so.

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

In light of the records, such determination by the court below is correct.

Therefore, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone proves that the facts charged in this case are beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is identical to the prosecutor’s assertion.