However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

[Criminal Power] On February 20, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Western District Court on August 2, 2019, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 2, 2019.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant is the representative of K Co., Ltd. in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who runs a construction business using approximately ten full-time workers.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay all money and valuables, such as wages, within 14 days from the date when the cause for such payment occurred, unless agreed by the parties concerned, but the Defendant did not pay 18,125,564 won in total for six workers, including 2,747,30 won, in February 1, 2019 (attached Form) No. 1,3,7,77,9,9,12, and 14, as well as 1,3,7, 125,564 won in total for six workers, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties concerned.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement, L, and M respective legal statements;

1. Each written petition and statement of N,O, L, P, M, and Q;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Previous convictions: Application of respective Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles of the Acts and the choice of punishment concerning facts constituting an offense: Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act;

1. Concurrent treatment: The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution: Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. As to the assertion that there exists a “justifiable cause” for unpaid wages for L, P, Q, and M, the employer could not prevent delayed payment or non-payment of wages even if he/she fulfilled his/her own gender and efforts, and in special circumstances where it is difficult to expect any more lawful act as a matter of social norms, the act of violation of Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act constitutes a ground for the exclusion of liability for the crime committed in violation of Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act. However, the detention of the Defendant cited by the Defendant.