The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of facts (i.e., the Defendant is not the employer of E (E).

The instant restaurant was operated by the Defendant’s mother and a person who is the president of G, and the Defendant was only working as an employee, and the payment of E was transferred to the request of the mother, and the dismissal was made only by the Defendant’s text message that the mother was working.

Since she stolen Bable PCs in a restaurant, there are circumstances in which she may not pay advance notice of dismissal.

Fidelity E received wages in the original judgment

The testimony was made, and E does not pay retirement pay because it does not continue to work.

x) The defendant is not aware of the intention in arrears because there are grounds for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc. as above.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence, E is acknowledged as an employer under the Labor Standards Act who is obligated to pay wages, etc. to E as the owner of the instant restaurant or a business manager of the instant restaurant, and is obligated to pay wages, etc. to E as indicated in the facts charged.

On May 26, 2015, the Defendant registered the instant restaurant operator, and the Defendant, the Defendant’s mother, the president, the G president, the Defendant’s children, and E worked in the restaurant.

E was employed as a Riri officer in relation to the G president and the former, and the hours of work were 21:00 :00 p.m. to 21:00 p.m. a day, 17:0 p.m. to 15:0 p.m., and 2.2 million won

Benefits are paid by the defendant, and the defendant is permitted to change the break time and break time, and the defendant's message is sent in three months after the start of service.

(v) Every day every week shall be a holiday.