The judgment of the court below (including the part not guilty in the grounds) shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant 1’s clothes sales store “Cullet” (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) operated by himself.

(2) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s wages paid to D in the year 2015 did not reach the minimum wage by calculating contractual hours excluding paid weekly paid hours and calculating the minimum wage, based on the result that the Defendant calculated the minimum wage by calculating contractual hours excluding paid hours, and that the amount of wages paid to D in the year 2015 was not below the minimum wage. In so doing, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay wages and retirement allowances for 30 minutes of the hours of recess. Therefore, the lower court was unlawful.

However, when determining whether a person falls short of the minimum wage, contractual work hours should be calculated based on the hours added to paid hours per week. As such, the lower court’s judgment that excluded paid hours from the minimum wage and determined the portion of the violation of the Minimum Wage Act in 2015 as not guilty for reasons is unlawful.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence imposed by the court below (2.5 million won of fine) is excessively heavy or unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant asserted that, as the Defendant guaranteed workers D a 30-day recess hours each day, the daily working hours should be calculated as 6 hours and 30-day working hours, the Defendant’s wages paid do not fall short of the minimum wage, and that the amount of wages and retirement allowances calculated as 7 hours a day working hours of D cannot be recognized.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the following grounds.

(1) The defendant is employing D as a clothing sales store.