If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is the representative of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Co., Ltd. who conducts software development business using 20 full-time workers.

The Defendant did not pay KRW 2,59,760, retirement allowance 14,821,802 to E’s annual leave allowances, and retirement allowance 14,821,802, which worked from August 4, 2008 to July 20, 2012, within 14 days from each retirement date, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the calculation of average wages and retirement allowances, employment contracts, vacations and salary payment records;

1. Article 109 (1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act concerning criminal facts, Articles 44 subparagraph 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,147,096, the aggregate of the wages of July 3, 2012 and August 3, 2012 at the workplace as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment, as well as KRW 2,225,032, retirement allowance5,340,607 within 14 days from the date of each of the grounds for the payment, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment between the parties, and the date of August 24, 2012.

2. The facts charged in this part of the judgment cannot be prosecuted against the employee’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. Since the above employee expressed his/her intent not to punish the Defendant around December 18, 2012 and January 14, 2013, which was after the institution of the instant indictment, this part of the indictment is dismissed in entirety pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.