If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

The defendant is an employer who runs a construction business using three full-time workers, each of whom is the operator of the F building B of Seongdong-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul.

The Defendant did not pay the total of KRW 23,330,584 of H’s wages and retirement allowances from the above workplace until October 31, 2012, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without any agreement between the parties on extension of the due date, as stated in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of H’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act related to criminal facts, 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. The dismissal of public prosecution under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is an employer who runs a construction business with three regular workers, each of whom is a manager of the F building B of Seongdong-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu.

The Defendant did not pay the wages and retirement allowances of workers B, C, D, and E within 14 days from the date of retirement, as stated in the attached crime list, as well as the wages of KRW 1,907,400 for December 201, 201, which worked from around December 6, 2010 to January 31, 201.

2. The facts charged in this part of the judgment are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent. Since the above victims expressed their intent not to punish the defendant after the institution of the prosecution in this case, the prosecution in this part is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.