The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, nine hours in total, including the hours of rest specified in the labor contract concluded between a private person E and F, a private person E and a non-party F, are twelve hours in total, including the hours of rest of 7:30 to 8:30 which are meal hours, 12:30 to 13:30, 17:30 to 18:30, and 17:30 to 18:30, and the hours of rest of 12 hours including the above meal hours.

In addition, the Defendant posted a work-time schedule that changes the working hours of E and F from June 2013 to 13 hours to 30 minutes a day and made them work accordingly.

E/F was actually guaranteed a sufficient time of rest at an independent resting place set up on the first and second floors of the instant medical center for the given time without the direction or supervision of the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the premise that the daily working hours are 15 hours in other parts, 9 hours a day off of E/F, and accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the appellate court and the appellate court, there was a time for E and F to wait and rest for emergency call during working hours due to the nature of the medical care protection services.

However, it is reasonable to view that the hours of recess granted to workers because it is difficult to see it as hours of recess is 9 hours a day as stated in the labor contract, and therefore, working hours are 15 hours a day. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts and by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1) E is the Defendant on March 9, 2013.