Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The defendant is an employer who operates D Co., Ltd. in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Although the Defendant had a duty to carry out a remedy order that became final and conclusive through administrative litigation, etc., the Defendant was determined by the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) that “on July 24, 2015, the employee E is reinstated to its original position, and the amount equivalent to the wages that would have been received if the Defendant had worked normally during the dismissal period,” and the said order was not paid KRW 6 million, which is part of the amount equivalent to the wages during the dismissal period, even though the said order was finalized through administrative litigation around September 21, 2017, and did not comply with the order for remedy.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The filing of an accusation, the details and circumstances of the accusation, the determination of non-performance of an order for remedy by the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, all of the registered matters, the written adjudication of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, the written adjudication of the Central Labor Relations Commission, the judgment of the Seoul Administrative Court,

1. Article 11 of the relevant Act concerning criminal facts, Article 111 of the Standards for Optional Labor, and Selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;