The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the request of the J, is merely registered under the name of the actual business owner, and does not constitute an employer who is an employer who is obligated to settle money and valuables due to the lack of practical affairs or management.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same as the above in the trial at the lower court, and the lower court comprehensively based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and comprehensively took account of the circumstances in its ruling, the Defendant was the actual representative director, who was in charge of banking work as one of three beneficial owners at the time when the Defendant was incorporated, and was the representative director under the name of the Defendant.

Even if workers were dismissed after the J was set aside in C through the agreement on July 23, 2015, the business management officer responsible for the settlement of money and valuables at that time determined that the Defendant was the Defendant, so long as the workers in charge were dismissed after the J was set aside in C.

On the other hand, the representative director of a corporation has the authority to represent the corporation externally and domestically to perform the business affairs of the corporation. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the representative director of the corporation is an employer as a person in charge of business management under Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act, but in the event that a specific person is registered only on the pretext of a wrongful purpose and does not actually perform any business affairs by excluding him from all business affairs of the corporation, the representative director cannot be deemed an employer as the person in charge of business management (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do2910 delivered on January 18, 200). As properly explained by the court below, the defendant is not a person in charge of all business affairs of the corporation, but is involved in the bank-related business affairs such as loans, etc., and is primarily involved in the business affairs of the corporation for the completion of the business affairs of the corporation.