The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant was deemed to have directly employed B as the general manager of the Dmhot Branch Co., Ltd.; (b) the Defendant managed the withdrawal and absence from office of the employees belonging to the said Dmhot Branch; and (c) the Defendant, upon obtaining approval by an interview to employees, conducted an interview with the employees and conducted an interview with the employees, and (d) upon obtaining approval, C only grants approval, and the Defendant was in substantial exclusive charge of the employment of employees; (b) however, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was not guilty of the Defendant on any other premise.

2. Article 114 and Article 17 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “former Labor Standards Act”) provides that the subject of the crime of violating Article 114 and Article 17 of the former Labor Standards Act is an employer. Article 2(1)2 of the former Labor Standards Act provides that the term “employer” refers to a business owner, a person in charge of business management, or a person who acts on behalf of a business owner in relation to matters concerning workers. Here, the term “person in charge of business management” refers to a person who is responsible for the general business of business management and represents or acts on behalf of an external company with comprehensive delegation from the business owner for all or part of the business management. Since the former Labor Standards Act does not limit the business owner as a person in charge of the duty to comply with the provisions of the same Act and expanded the grounds for such as a person in charge of business management, etc. to ensure the effectiveness of each provision of the former Labor Standards Act, in a labor site, as a person in charge of business management is granted the general authority and the authority.

Supreme Court Decision 200