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

The defendant is a user who operates a double-water source without regular workers in Naju City C.

1. An employer shall provide necessary medical treatment at his expense or bear corresponding expenses for a worker who suffers from an occupational injury or disease;

On June 6, 2014, around 17:30 on June 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (b) performed packing work on a ship in an orchard; (c) and (d) the employees D, who suffered from an accident, such as “wholly softening on the left side, chills, and tensions,” etc.; and (d) received hospitalized treatment from June 7, 2014 to June 27, 2014, the Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 1,190,250 for D’s medical care expenses.

2. If a worker suffers from an occupational injury or disease, the employer shall pay a compensation for suspension of work equivalent to sixty percent of his average wages during the medical treatment of the worker who is under the medical treatment;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, like the preceding paragraph, provided medical care from June 7, 2014 to August 15, 2014 due to occupational injury. However, the Defendant, the employer, did not pay KRW 5,518,800 to D total compensation for business suspension during that period.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Article 110 subparag. 1 of the relevant Act on the crime, Article 110 subparag. 1 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 78(1) of the Labor Standards Act (which refers to unpaid medical care expenses), Article 110 subparag. 1 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 79(1) of the Labor Standards Act (which refers

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

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

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument D is that, at the time, the Defendant entered into the contract and was paid allowances (60 won per package) according to the work volume, and was not subject to direction and supervision by the Defendant, and further, the package on June 6, 2014 is packaged only on the day.