The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court dismissed each part of the public prosecution on the grounds that the employee did not wish to punish, and sentenced all of the remainder of the charges, on the grounds that the lower court, after instituting a prosecution on the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the failure to liquidate money and valuables among the facts charged in the instant case.

However, since the defendant appealed only for the guilty portion on the grounds of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the dismissal of the above dismissal portion is separated and finalized as it is, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction portion

2. On April 24, 2018, the summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) transferred the business of the restaurant run by the Defendant to D (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). Since D operated the instant restaurant from June 6, 2018 according to the business transfer agreement, the Defendant was not the employer of the instant worker as of June 2, 2018, the date of dismissal of the instant workers.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same in the lower court.

For this reason, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged, on the ground that the Defendant and D agreed to transfer business, and the employment relationship of the instant workers was not succeeded to D, and thus, the Defendant was liable for the dismissal of the instant workers.

B. Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

4. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.