The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendants were not in violation of the Labor Standards Act, inasmuch as there was no error in or interference with the process of obtaining consent from a majority of workers by means of collective decision-making.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, in order that an employer intends to change the existing working conditions to the disadvantage of an employee due to the amendment of the rules of employment, the consent is required by the collective decision-making method of the employee who was subject to the previous conditions of employment or the rules of employment, and the amendment of the rules of employment which did not obtain such consent is not effective. In the absence of a trade union, the consent is required by a majority of the employees by the method of meeting, and the consent by the method of meeting is allowed by exchanging opinions between the employees under the condition that the employer’s involvement or interference is excluded by the organization or unit department of a business

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant violated the provisions of the Labor Standards Act by modifying the rules of employment disadvantageously without consent of a majority of workers.

Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

1) Defendant B revised the rules of employment on April 20, 2016, as the president of the F Care Center run by Defendant A as a social welfare foundation.

2) The revised rules of employment include the provision on dismissal, the provision on standby issuance, the provision on leave of absence order, etc. under the existing rules of employment, added the grounds for disciplinary action, and the reduction of ordinary leave of absence so that workers can be disadvantageously changed.