The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) the Defendant gave D prior notice of dismissal 30 days to the working person D.

D There is no obligation to give prior notice of dismissal or to pay prior notice of dismissal when it is dismissed because it intentionally causes enormous impediment to the business of the defendant.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, as an employer who operates construction machinery leasing business as a representative of C in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Defendant, who was employed from October 12, 2016 to work for construction machinery leasing business, did not give notice of dismissal 30 days before dismissal and did not pay KRW 3,596,940 equivalent to the ordinary wages for 30 days.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion that a notice of dismissal was given, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, on the sole basis of the fact that the Defendant, from March 8, 2017, told D to find out another job by telephone, etc., could have determined the point of time of dismissal or anticipated D to be dismissed at any time.

For reasons that it is difficult to see, it rejected Defendant’s assertion.

Examining the reasoning of the lower court’s detailed comparison with the records, the lower court’s finding and determination of this part of the facts are justified. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion that the Defendant did not have a duty to pre-determination of dismissal or payment of pre-employment allowance, the Defendant’s dismissal of D on April 5, 2017 under the proviso to Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act and the attached Table 9 of Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (Article 4 subparag. 9 of the Labor Standards Act) (Article 26 of the same Act) would cause enormous

(2) the notice of dismissal is an exception to the notice of dismissal.