beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below which acknowledged the Defendants a violation of the Labor Standards Act, even though the Defendants did not employ F and G, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the grounds of appeal.
2. Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “worker” refers to a person who provides a business or workplace for wage purposes regardless of the type of occupation, regardless of the type of occupation, and Article 2(1)2 provides that “employer” refers to a business owner, a person in charge of business management, or any other person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters relating to a worker.
Here, the term "business owner" refers to a business owner, and the term "person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters relating to workers" refers to a person who is given specific authority and responsibility by the business owner with respect to the determination of labor conditions, such as personnel management, wages, welfare, and labor management, or matters such as order, direction, supervision, etc. of a business (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu6924, Nov. 14, 1989; 2008Do5984, Oct. 9, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, the case was examined; according to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendants specifically directed and supervised the business owner in order to perform the work of other works at the construction site jointly operated by F and G, and the defendants did not pay wages within 14 days after completion of the work.
Therefore, the court below is just to recognize the defendants as a joint principal offender in violation of the Labor Standards Act, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts
Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendants’ assertion of mistake as to the above facts.
3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.