The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle) determined that the amended rules of employment of the limited partnership company C (hereinafter “instant company”) operated by the Defendant was amended for the purpose of avoiding the Minimum Wage Act, and thus, the Defendant was guilty of violating each Minimum Wage Act among the facts charged against the Defendant on the premise that it is invalid.

However, under Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act (hereinafter “Special Provision”), which was newly established by the amendment of the Minimum Wage Act on December 27, 2007, the hours of taxi drivers’ working hours to punish taxi commission and transport earnings exceeding the taxi commission (hereinafter “excess taxi earnings”) were excluded from the scope of wages that are included in the minimum wage, so there is a need to exclude excess taxi earnings from the contractual working hours to compensate for such excess taxi earnings. In order to increase the fixed wage paid to taxi drivers under his/her control, the company’s increase in the taxi commission that would inevitably result in not raising the taxi commission even if most of the taxi drivers belonging to the company of this case were lower than the fixed wage, and accordingly, the company’s rules of employment were modified by reflecting the intent of such taxi drivers, thereby compelling only the increase of the fixed wage out of the wages of taxi drivers without any separate legislative and policy improvement would ultimately be contrary to the purpose of legislation of the company’s Rules of Employment.

Therefore, under different premise, the defendant's violation of the Minimum Wage Act among the facts charged against the defendant.