The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant and the employees of the Defendant are obligated to pay money and valuables to the employees, since they actually directed and supervise workers including D in the construction site of this case at the construction site of this case, and the Defendant purchased raw materials and calculated money and valuables per day and do so directly. Thus, the employees are obligated to pay money and valuables to the employees.

2. Determination

A. The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial shall be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in light of the fact that the Criminal Appeal Trial has the character as a post-trial even after deceiving the lower court, and the spirit of substantial direct examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., in a case where the first instance court rendered a judgment not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as examination of witness, etc., the first instance court may raise probability or doubt as to the facts that

Even if it does not reach the extent of sufficiently resolving the reasonable doubt caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone makes it difficult to prove a crime erroneous in the judgment of the first instance court that there was an error of mistake of facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). On the other hand, whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act shall not be deemed as a worker in substance, regardless of the form of a contract.