The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Although the Defendant alleged that D’s unused annual paid leave is 9.5 days, the Defendant asserted that D’s unused annual paid leave was 9.5 days, since it was argued after the lapse of the period for filing an appellate brief, and it was permitted to amend the indictment that conforms to the above argument in the trial, the above argument is not judged differently.

A. Since the non-existence of an unpaid annual paid leave allowance (hereinafter “unpaid leave allowance”) entered into a comprehensive wage system with D, the Defendant did not have an annual paid leave allowance to D, since it entered into a comprehensive paid leave agreement with D including an annual paid leave allowance.

B. In the case of intentional denial of pay-in-service intention, it is customary that, even if a comprehensive wage system contract was not used annually, the Defendant believed that he was not obligated to pay the annual amount of pay-in-service allowance to retired D, and thus, the Defendant paid the amount equivalent to the annual amount of the annual amount of pay-in-service allowance as required by D to avoid a dispute.

Therefore, it can be seen that the defendant did not have the intention of violating the Labor Standards Act, or that the defendant agreed to extend D and date.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor shall reach the judgment of the court below on the following 3.A.

As stated in the paragraph, an application for changes in indictment was filed, and this court has been permitted to do so and the subject of the adjudication was changed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still included in the subject of a trial at the court.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant, as the representative of the C Hospital in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, is an employer who employs 134 full-time workers and operates the hospital.

The Defendant was working at the above hospital from November 20, 2015 to November 18, 2016.