The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was aware that D is different from an ordinary worker as a person who is in the position of a “paid installment business operator” or “joint business operator,” and thus, the Defendant did not recognize that D had the obligation to pay retirement allowances and to deliver a labor contract under the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and does not intentionally pay retirement allowances or deliver a labor contract.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits provides that “worker” refers to a worker under Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act, and Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “worker” refers to a person who provides labor to a business or workplace for wages regardless of the type of occupation.

Determination of whether a worker is a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act shall be made in accordance with whether a worker provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages regardless of the form of a contract. Determination of whether a dependent relationship here exists, the contents of the work shall be determined by the employer, whether the worker is subject to the rules of employment, service regulations, personnel regulations, etc., whether the employer is specifically and directly directed and supervised in the course of performing his/her duties, whether the remuneration has the nature of the worker itself as the object of the work, whether the basic salary or fixed wage has been determined, whether the wage has the nature of the wage itself, whether the wage is withheld from the wage tax, and other matters such as the continuity of the labor provision relationship and the exclusiveness and degree of the wage to the employer. The Supreme Court Decisions 205Du524 Decided May 27, 2005; Amended by Act No. 847