When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is the representative director of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who is in the third floor, and operates a sanitary management service business using 50 full-time workers.

The Defendant did not pay 6,058,098 won in total to three employees, as well as 1,207,624 won of retirement allowances, to F, who retired from office as an environmental business of the United States from September 1, 201 to January 29, 2014 within E apartment complex, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without consultation on the extension of the payment deadline between the parties concerned, as shown in the attached crime chart.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A copy of the passbook (F), a copy of the passbook (G), and a copy of the passbook (H);

1. Application of statutes on a copy of employment contract;

1. Article 44 of the Act applicable to facts constituting an offense, and Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for elective Workers, and Selection of a fine;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion on the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and his defense counsel did not pay retirement allowances even after his retirement, since the Defendant paid monthly salary to the employees, and the employees did not pay retirement allowances even after his retirement. Thus, there was no intention in violation of the Act on the Guarantee of

The argument is asserted.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

A. The defendant knew that he individually interviews at the time of the worker's membership, and that his retirement pay is paid along with the monthly payment, and that the worker knew of his fact at the same time of multiple mothers.

One of the arguments, F testified from the defendant in this court that there is no fact that the defendant did not have any opinion.

(b) between the Defendant and F.