전기공사업법위반등
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
B was the actual operator of C(State) and (State) D, the Defendant was the representative director of E(State), and the F was the representative director of C(State).
Defendant and B merged C (State) and E (State) around December 9, 2012, and B demanded the Defendant to subscribe to national health insurance as a workplace insured of C (State) from January 2, 2013 to September 10, 2013. From May 13, 2014 to November 30, 2014, Defendant and B demanded (State) to subscribe to national health insurance as a workplace insured of D (State).
1. No technician for electrical construction business who has violated the Act on Electrical Construction Business shall lend his/her career pocketbook to another person;
Nevertheless, on December 2, 2012, the Defendant lent a career pocketbook to B by sending the Defendant’s career pocketbooks to the employees of C (ju) from January 2, 2013 to August 26, 2013, on condition that the Defendant subscribed to the health insurance at the office located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, as a staff member of C (ju) and from September 10 to September 2013, 2014, respectively, from September 10 to September 2014, the Defendant lent the career pocketbook to B by allowing the Defendant to use the Defendant’s career pocketbook for electrical construction technicians.
2. On January 17, 2017, the Defendant drafted two copies of a false petition with a view to having B obtain criminal punishment for a violation of the Labor Standards Act due to unpaid wages, using the fact that he/she was insured as a workplace subscriber at a place of influence, C (State) and D (State).
Among them, the head of one of the following: “A person who was employed in C (State) from January 2, 2013 to September 10, 2013, but was not paid wage of KRW 7,00,000 by the respondent,” and the head of other 1 was the content that “A person who was the petitioner, even though he worked in D from May 13, 2014 to November 30, 2014, did not pay KRW 8,100,000 to the respondent,” which read as “A person, who was the petitioner, did not pay KRW 8,10,000 in wages.”
However, the defendant does not have any labor in C(State) and (State)D for the period specified in C(State) and (State)D, unlike the content of the petition, and thus claims wages to C(State) and (State)D.