The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The amendment of the Minimum Wage Act to the Minimum Wage Act due to the violation of the Minimum Wage Act and the violation of the Minimum Wage Act due to unpaid minimum wage, taxi drivers’ wage does not include excess taxi earnings after deducting taxi commissions. As such, the hours of operation to obtain excess taxi earnings during the hours of taxi operation by the employees of the Defendant company cannot be included in working hours. Therefore, after the amendment of the Minimum Wage Act, the working hours of the employees of the Defendant company may be deemed reduced, and the said employees may not be deemed to have worked in excess of the contractual hours under the wage agreement and the agreement concluded between the Defendant company and the M&A. Furthermore, the Defendant company and its employees concluded a wage agreement and the agreement to reduce the contractual working hours to avoid the increase of taxi commissions through the agreement on both sides, and thus, the said agreement and agreement cannot be deemed null and void as a violation of compulsory provisions contrary to the purport of the Amendment of the Minimum Wage Act. Therefore, as long as the Defendant paid all wages under the newly concluded wage agreement and agreement, there is no obligation to pay overtime work allowances and overtime allowances between the Defendant company and the Labor Standards.

Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for violating the Labor Standards Act due to the payment of overtime allowance and night work allowance.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.