However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

The defendant is the user who operates C in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

From July 18, 2011 to April 1, 201, the Defendant: (a) performed the work at the said company; (b) KRW 40 million in total; (c) KRW 35 million; and (d) million in total; and (d) KRW 1783,00,000 (hereinafter referred to as “18,30,000,000,000 won”) of E’s wages of retired workers from the said company from April 1, 2011 to June 1, 2013; and (d) KRW 2,203,00,000,000 won in total, as well as KRW 4.2 million in the indictment (hereinafter referred to as “18,300,000,000,000 won in writing”)

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Article 109 (1), Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act on criminal facts, Article 44 subparagraph 1, and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (a point of not paying retirement allowances);

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

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The fact that there is a history of the same kind of crime in the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, the fact that it does not cooperate with the victims in the procedure for paying substitute payments, and other factors such as the amount of the money and valuables in arrears, the number of the