beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) workers D, in C (hereinafter “C”), had an interview to be recruited by the Defendant, and the Defendant decided and approved the overall control tower and materials related to the construction, and left the housing site where the Defendant is running, with the same volume of volume, left the site, and the Defendant was called “the president”, and there was no special speech by the Defendant, and the Defendant directly consulted on the entire wage and working conditions, and there is a mental problem.
It was entirely impossible to think of
A person who has made a statement or other work has made a very detailed and detailed statement about the circumstances he thought to be the employer.
In addition, at the investigation stage, the defendant argued that he is his employer and E is merely a representative in the name of the defendant, but the defendant did not make a concrete statement about the reason why he denies it by reversaling it in the court, and there is no credibility of the contents that the defendant's relative G was present in the court of first instance and raised as a witness in the court of first instance.
Rather, E, a representative in the name of the defendant and F, is the actual representative director of C, and himself was given the name of the representative of the company upon the request of the defendant and F, and the employee D was also subject to the employment interview from the defendant and set the working conditions, and was given specific instructions from the person who is the head of F.
Although the court below made a statement, it rejected the specific testimony of the above E without any reasons.
It is not recognized that the defendant is a business owner who can enjoy the benefit of his business while operating C.
However, according to the above worker D's statement, even though the defendant is sufficiently recognized as a person who acts on behalf of the business owner with respect to the matters concerning workers, the court below did not determine this part.