The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that Defendant B and C is employed by Defendant G, a corporation managing by Defendant, and constitutes “regular employees” under the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and does not constitute “regular employees.”

Even if the certificate of qualification is not leased, it is not related.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence of the court below and it is hard to view the following as wages of the nature of work itself even though B and C did not provide labor,

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the labor contract and the details of the four-party insurance coverage, etc. presented as evidentiary materials are insufficient to directly recognize the worker nature of B and C, the Defendant was guilty of the instant charges on the grounds that B and C did not actually work in G Co., Ltd. and only lent the qualification certificate to the Defendant.

3. Determination on whether a deliberation was made

A. Article 11(3) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 7-2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act concerning the method of calculating the “number of full-time workers” shall be construed as “the number of full-time workers” under Article 2(1) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Ordinary Workers, Fixed-term Workers, and Part-time Workers in the pertinent business or workplace;