beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the statement in the record of recording the conversations with the defendant submitted by E in the court below, it is recognized that E expressed that he was an employee E in the course of conversation, and even after he transferred the instant furniture to the defendant, E has operated the household sales business at the instant household store. Even after he transferred the instant furniture, E has no reason to work at the instant household store for a considerable period of time, even after he lost income sources and suffered difficulties in living, and the witness I and F in the court below stated that he was the president, but it appears that he was only the employer-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee-employee, in light of the above, it appears that this constitutes a worker of the defendant, and on different premise, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative of D Co., Ltd. in Heung-gu Seoul, employs five full-time workers and operates the furniture sales business. When the employee retires, the employer shall pay the wages and all other money and valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, while working in the said workplace from September 1, 201 to November 30, 201, did not pay eight million won wages of E of retired workers who were employed in the said workplace within 14 days from the time when the cause for the payment occurred without an agreement extending the payment date between the parties concerned.
B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the Defendant stated that he was in a very closely-friendly relationship from E and around 2006 to E (E was in this court that he was in a personal relationship with the Defendant from 2006 to 2010); and (b) E borrowed KRW 150 million from the Defendant on June 25, 2008; and (c) the authentication of a monetary loan agreement to repay the said amount on June 25, 2009.