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

The defendant is the representative of the corporation E, Co., Ltd. in Ansan-si and B-603, who ordinarily employs eight workers and operates a consortium manufacturing business.

The Defendant had worked from February 1, 2013 to September 8, 2015 at the same workplace, and paid KRW 128,025 of the F in May 2015, wages of KRW 3,556,480 in June, 2015, wages of KRW 3,556,480 in July, 3,56,55,480 in August, 948,39, totaling KRW 11,745,859 in September, 394 in September, and retirement allowances, KRW 10,184,632 in September 1, 2015, without any agreement between the parties on extension of payment period.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of F’s written statements to the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act applicable to criminal facts, and Article 44 Subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (a point of payment of retirement allowances);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant did not pay retirement allowances even after retirement of F, because F did not pay retirement allowances in advance, and that F did not pay wages, etc. to F because F incurred damage due to business negligence.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is rejected.

F On September 7, 2015, the F reported the Defendant to the Korea Employment and Labor Agency of the Middlebu District on September 7, 2015, and the Defendant explained to the effect that the advance payment is not effective in the course of investigation by a labor inspector.