The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The defendant is obligated to pay wages and retirement allowances corresponding to working hours, since the rest time assigned to D on a daily basis to D cannot be deemed to be more than one hour and 30 minutes, and D has worked for 10 hours and 30 minutes.

In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant agreed to include annual salary, retirement allowance, etc. for monthly salary paid to D with D, and instead, he/she attempted to prepare a comprehensive wage system ex post with the knowledge of the fact that he/she should pay D wages, annual salary, etc., and he/she refused to pay it even though he/she requested it on January 6, 2019 after six days from the date of retirement.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The facts constituting an offense charged in a criminal trial should be proven by the prosecutor, and the judge should be found guilty with evidence having probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interests of the defendant should be determined in the absence of such evidence.

(Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 delivered on December 24, 2002). As stated in the grounds of appeal, even if a prosecutor did not work in reality during the work hours, if it is not guaranteed to the employee as a rest time, but is actually under the employer’s direction and supervision, it should be deemed as included in the work hours (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41990 delivered on November 23, 2006).