The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the employee in this case expressed his intention not to punish B, that there was no claim for wages against the Defendant who is the immediate contractor, that B did not inform the Defendant of the fact that he did not have been paid wages, that B and workers did not have the opportunity to participate in the agreement process, and that B’s liability has ceased to exist by repaying the unpaid wages. In addition, it is reasonable to view that the employee in this case’s death penalty for B includes the Defendant’

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's non-compliance with the punishment of the worker of this case is invalid is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle

B. In fact, the Defendant had paid the amount equivalent to the wages of the workers notified by B to the account of the workers, and there is no objection against the monthly amount transferred by the workers.

In full view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Defendant had intention to pay wages.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty, and there is an error of misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is an employee who does not wish to punish the subcontractor as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is necessary to examine whether there is an expression of intent which does not wish to punish the immediately upper contractor, taking into account the following: (a) whether an employee directly claims wages to the immediately upper contractor; (b) whether the subcontractor notified the immediate upper contractor of the payment of wages; (c) whether the immediately upper contractor was an opportunity to participate in the process of the agreement between the subcontractor and the employee; (d) whether the employee explicitly excluded the immediately upper contractor from the direct upper contractor; and (e) whether the subcontractor’s liability was extinguished through repayment or exemption.