The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and the misapprehension of the legal principle) of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant while recognizing the status of employee D as the doctor of the instant hospital, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and misconception of facts

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to deem D as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

① From April 27, 2018, D was registered as a director of the E Medical Foundation, a medical corporation, which is a regular name in C/C convalescent, and registered his/her branch as a director of a number of medical corporations.

② D as the head of the C convalescent hospital, a number of nurses were directly employed.

③ D, as the sole doctor of C convalescent, has been paid monthly higher than the Defendant’s employer and workers.

D has been directly involved in the management of the hospital by raising a strong objection against F, who received money for opening the hospital again, to the position of a director in charge of accounting management.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, which are: (i) D was not merely registered as a director of the medical corporation of this case, but is the sole doctor of the hospital of this case, and was in the position of the head of the hospital who has no choice but to exercise overall control over the treatment duties corresponding to the core duties of the hospital of this case; (ii)D was subject to specific and direct direction and supervision from the defendant in connection with the hospital of this case; (iii) rather D was aware of the leap of the hospital of this case, and was asked by the defendant in operating the hospital.