The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The abstract of grounds for appeal and the relationship between the accused and F, etc. is not a contract;

Although it is difficult to recognize that F, etc. constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act should be determined depending on whether the form of a contract is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and whether a person who actually worked in a business or workplace provided an employer with labor in subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages in the business or workplace.

Here, whether a dependent relationship exists with an employer shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the employer’s contents of work; (b) the employer is subject to the rules of employment or personnel regulations; (c) whether the employer is subject to considerable command and supervision in the course of performing the work; (d) whether the employer is designated as working hours and working places; and (e) whether the employer is able to operate his/her business on his/her own account on his/her own account; (e) whether the employer is able to own equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc. or to employ a third party; (e) whether the employer has a risk, such as creation of profits and losses from providing labor; and (e) whether the remuneration is the nature of the subject of the work itself; (e) whether the basic or fixed wage has been determined; and (e) whether the employer collects the source of the labor income tax; and (e) whether the employer has continued to provide labor; and (e) whether the status of an employee is recognized under the statutes on the social security system (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20105Da50601).