The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the summary of the grounds for appeal E received basic pay and allowances from the defendant at the workplace operated by the defendant, and the defendant made a final decision on the place of business transaction, E is a worker who provided labor for the purpose of wages in subordinate relationship with the defendant, and thus, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, despite the fact that he was liable to pay retirement allowances,

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: ① (a) from September 1, 2008 to November 23, 2012, E worked as a business employee; (b) the labor contract with the Defendant was not concluded in writing; (c) the working day, working hours; and (d) the place of work are set on its own judgment; (c) the vehicles and tables necessary for business are prepared as a general business employee upon the request of the business employee; (c) the remuneration is generally set at a basic salary but there is a change in the business performance, and the payment was made according to the business performance without the basic salary at E’s request; and (d) the Defendant did not pay retirement allowances according to the determination that he did not constitute a worker obligated to pay retirement allowances; (c) the Defendant is expected to pay the retirement allowances if he is legally required to pay the payment; and (d) the remainder of the remuneration is paid after considering the fact that there is no ground for dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to pay retirement allowances; and (d) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to conclude the facts charged in this case.

B. (1) The relevant legal principles of the Labor Standards Act are applied to the judgment of the competent court.