The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant entered into a franchise contract with E, and the Defendant paid incentives based on the sales performance, not remuneration determined as remuneration, and E is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

However, since the defendant thought that he is not E workers for the same reason, the defendant has no intention to commit a violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Labor Standards Act and the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Although the appellate court did not have any objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the course of the trial, when it intends to re-examine the first instance judgment after ex post determination, there are reasonable circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. Furthermore, without such exceptional circumstances, the first instance judgment should not be reversed without permission (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court. The lower court, on this basis, stated that “E was the same as the foregoing reasons for appeal,” from June 1, 2015 to May 1, 2018, while serving as the Hague, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was considerably unfair, and that the first instance judgment was still paid for more than three months after the first three-month period of service, and that the Defendant was paid for more than three (30) months after the total working hours.