The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding or misapprehension of the legal principles, E, a Moel employee operated by the Defendant, has been paid wages of at least KRW 2.6 million per month including at least KRW 450,000 per month and KRW 400,000 per month while working for 20 hours per shooting day.

On the other hand, the labor contract prepared between the defendant and E includes the agreement that E does not raise a civil or criminal objection to the labor contract.

Therefore, there is no wage difference that the defendant has not paid to E, or it is not possible to institute a public prosecution pursuant to Article 109 (2) of the Labor Standards Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of all of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, the contents of E’s work are “parking and other duties” in the labor contract written between the Defendant and E, and the hours of work are “from 10:00 on the day to 07:00 on the day following the day.” The hours of work are not specified, and E is not specified, even if it does not view the telecomter’s work, it can be acknowledged that it was carrying out the duties, such as parking management, while staying in the telecomter.

The time when the defendant employs part-time students can not be considered as E's recess hours.

In addition, food expenses are characterized for the welfare of workers in the form of goods, and they are wages or allowances not included in the minimum wage under the main sentence of Article 2 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Minimum Wage Act because the occurrence date of the reason is not determined or non-permanent wages or allowances.

Therefore, the Defendant did not pay E wages equivalent to the sum total of the crime sight table of the lower judgment.

On the other hand, according to the record, E is the case.