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

1. Around 10:00 on April 2, 2018, the Defendant modified the private document by allowing D to enter “G” on September 28, 2016, the F restaurant employment contract in the name of the Defendant on September 28, 2016, which was entered in the name column of the job seeker, for the purpose of exercising the private apartment B apartment in C, and arbitrarily seeed “G” in the name of the Defendant on September 28, 2016.

2. At around 16:00 on April 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) submitted to an employee with no knowledge of the name of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, who was aware of the forgery, a labor contract modified by the Ministry of Employment and Labor as stipulated in paragraph (1) at the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s Office where the Macio Bari was located, and exercised the contract.

[In light of the following circumstances, comprehensively considering evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant does not seem to have permitted or consented to entering the name of “G” in the above labor contract as seen above. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted on a different premise. ① Of course, G made a statutory statement to the effect that “E does not require the Defendant to prepare a labor contract between E and the Defendant at the time of concluding the consignment management contract.” ② The consignment management contract concluded with E on December 27, 2016 concluded with E is a contract under which E entrusts the Defendant with the operation of the above restaurant and distributes the remainder of the sales amount to E, not a labor contract under which E is the Defendant or the Defendant’s employment contract. In light of the aforementioned meaning, it does not appear to have guaranteed the Defendant or the Defendant’s profits each month at the time of concluding the consignment management contract.

Even if the above arrangement was made, above.