The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant left the demonstration zone and went to India when entering the demonstration zone was not reliable; and (b) the Defendant’s body was released in large quantities by his employees at the time of the demonstration, the Defendant’s allegation that the part of the fire extinguishing season was obstructed by road traffic as stated in the facts charged, but the lower court’s determination that there was insufficient proof on the facts charged of the instant case was erroneous.

2. Determination

A. A summary of the facts charged 1, the background of the so-called “original demonstration group” demonstration was consistently demanded to the effect that C Company’s employees belonging to the D Factory Cooperation Company are converted into full-time employees by a trade union comprised of employees belonging to the D Factory Cooperation Company C Company.

On July 22, 2010, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment on the reversal of a return to the effect that "an employment shall be deemed as a result of the company's illegal dispatch for at least two years for E, a member of the C In-house subcontractor association." On February 23, 2012, the Supreme Court became final and conclusive with the same content.

C The decision of the Supreme Court on the above E was requested to the effect that “the above-mentioned E shall apply to all workers of the intra-company subcontractor in the C factory regardless of whether they are directly engaged in the production process, so that all workers of the intra-company subcontractor shall be transferred to regular workers immediately.”

C In-house subcontractor and C Co., Ltd. have conducted special consultations over 16 times from May 15, 2012 to June 26, 2013. However, C Co., Ltd is only applicable to only one person E, and it cannot be deemed illegal dispatch solely on the ground that they work in the D Plant regardless of the form of employment.