The guilty portion in the judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. As to the violation of the Labor Standards Act against Workers C, D, E, F, and G among the facts charged in the instant case, the first instance court sentenced the dismissal of prosecution on the ground that the above workers had withdrawn their wish to prosecute after the prosecution, and sentenced the remaining J and K to a fine of KRW 1,50,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

However, the defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus the rejection portion of the above dismissal becomes final and conclusive as is. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the first instance court of the violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment by changing “ May 27, 2012.” in the facts charged in the indictment and the attached Form to “ June 8, 2012,” and the first instance court determined that the indictment was too excessive, even though permission was granted, and based on the facts charged prior to the amendment.

B. Since misunderstanding of facts is not an employee employed by the defendant but a partner, the defendant is not obligated to pay wages to the J.

3. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of violation of law, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment in the first instance and the attached Form of the indictment in the first instance trial on the fifth trial of the first instance court, which read the phrase “as of June 8, 2012” as “as of June 8, 2012,” and the first instance court, despite the consent of the defendant and his defense counsel, found the defendant guilty of violating the Labor Standards Act with regard to this part of the facts charged before the amendment as it is, and found the defendant guilty based on the facts charged before the amendment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

As such, the defendant's above argument is reasonable.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, this Court and the first instance court have duly adopted it.