The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant merely entered into a contract in the form with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and actually entered into a contract with G for work progress and with workers, and paid wages directly from G. As such, the facts charged that the Defendant employed 26 workers and carried out construction work cannot be acknowledged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, determination 1 on the misapprehension of the facts and legal principles: (i) the Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Fund subcontracted the steel reinforced concrete part of H-built construction from G on March 15, 2016 to KRW 720 million (excluding value added tax); (ii) the F and G shall prepare a loan certificate stating that they will submit a security or contract guarantee certificate for the amount paid in excess of the above contract amount on July 2, 2016; (iii) the above loan certificate is written by the beneficiary, the F and M, the head of the site of B and F, the representative director of G; (iv) the above loan certificate is written by G recipient; and (iv) the Defendant’s 26 employee as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, at an investigative agency, was employed by the Defendant as the daily employee at the aforementioned construction site; and (v) the said employee was employed by F.

The above workers stated that they entered into a labor contract with F.

The Defendant, upon receiving a subcontract for the construction work from G, had employed workers and performed the construction work.

It is reasonable to view it.

2) Meanwhile, according to the aforementioned evidence, G is recognized as having paid wages to its workers, but the Defendant and G are the workers.