The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal D merely concluded a service contract with the defendant, but does not correspond to workers under the Labor Standards Act, the court below convicted all of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act should be determined in light of whether the form of a contract is an employment contract or a contract for work, depending on whether a person providing labor has provided labor to an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace.

In this context, whether a dependent relationship exists shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following economic and social conditions: (a) whether an employer determines the details of the work; (b) whether an employer is subject to the rules of employment or service regulations; (c) whether an employer is bound by the employer to designate working hours and working places; (d) whether an employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account; (e) whether a labor provider has a risk, such as the creation of profit and loss from the provision of labor; (e) whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of the work; (g) whether the basic or fixed wage has been determined; and (g) whether the source of the income tax has been collected; (d) whether the provision of labor was continued; and (e) whether the employer has exclusive responsibility for the employer; and (e) whether the status of an employee is recognized under the statutes on the social security system (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da22859, Dec. 9, 199; 200Da1375, Nov. 13, 2014).