The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, misunderstanding workers E role in inducing other workers not to abide by the labor standard law but to prevent them from working, and one year has passed since they joined the company due to the occurrence of various problems and resulted in the company from working without permission.

Therefore, E is not a legitimate employee who is entitled to receive wages or retirement allowances in light of the purpose of the Labor Standards Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) If there is a ground for dispute as to the existence of an obligation to pay wages, etc., there is considerable reason for the employer to have not paid such wages, etc.

Therefore, there was an intentional act of violating Article 109 (1) of the Labor Standards Act.

It is difficult to recognize

In addition, the issue of whether there is any ground for dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages should be determined in light of the circumstances at the time of dispute over the reason for the employer's refusal of payment, the grounds for such obligation, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the business purpose, and the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1539, Jun. 28, 2007). In addition, since workers' wages should be paid directly to the workers in full, it cannot be offset against workers' wage claims with loans or tort claims against the employees except for over-paid claims for the refund of wages (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do2168, Jul. 13, 199). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the health care unit as seen above, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., E., enterprises operated by the defendant on Oct. 26, 2015.