2. 50,000 won if the defendant does not pay the above fine.

The defendant is the representative director of D, Co., Ltd., which is located in C at the time of Edsan, who ordinarily employs 17 workers and operates a door manufacturing business.

From September 1, 2010 to January 26, 2012, the Defendant worked for the pertinent company as a driver, and did not pay KRW 1,440,188, in total, overtime work allowances, including KRW 146,483, Sept. 9, 2010, which was retired, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date for payment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by witnesses E in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Partial statement of witness F in the fourth trial record;

1. Statements made by witnesses G in the seventh trial records;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Part of the police statement of H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E’s written petition;

1. Article 109 (1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act applicable to criminal facts and Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the same Act;

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

1. Reasons for conviction under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant and his defense counsel concluded a labor contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and concluded a comprehensive wage contract with the effect that the Defendant shall pay various overtime allowances, including overtime allowances, in monthly pay. Thus, the Defendant did not have a separate obligation to pay overtime allowances to E.

2. Determination as to whether an agreement on the comprehensive wage system was established should be made specifically by comprehensively considering various circumstances, such as working hours, forms of employment and the nature of work, units of wage calculation, collective agreement and employment rules, and actual conditions of the same workplace.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da57852, Dec. 10, 2009). With respect to the instant case, the health care unit and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court is acknowledged as follows.