All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts charged by the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of part of conviction) and misunderstanding of legal principles, as to the facts charged by the Defendant 1, F directly reported and submitted documents related to substitute payment to the Labor Agency, the Defendant does not fall under the subject of the act prescribed in Article 28 subparag. 2 of the former Guarantee of Wage Claim (amended by Act No. 11277, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Guarantee of Wage Claim”) and (2) the F actually worked as a direct employee of D (hereinafter “D”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which pronounced guilty on this part is erroneous by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (one year of suspended sentence in April) for sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of facts) 1) workers L, and M were to make statements corresponding to the facts charged at an investigative agency, and denied the facts of crime by reconcing the court of the first instance. Since D representative E and Labor Workers J may deny the facts of crime in order to be exempted from the criminal liability as co-offenders, each statement is not reliable, since there is no possibility that each statement was made by the D representative E and Labor Workers J, the workers did not receive one benefit from D, and the total number of outputs did not appear to have been prepared or confirmed in D, it shall be convicted of the facts of the crime No. 2 or No. 7. However, the judgment of the first instance that acquitted this part of the judgment that acquitted the facts or erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (one year of suspended sentence in four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. An employee who intends to receive a substitute payment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, causes a substitute payment.