If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 60,000 won.

The defendant is the representative of E in Gyeong-gun, Namnam-gun, who is an employer who runs a manufacturing business (mechanic processing) with nine full-time workers.

The Defendant did not pay the total amount of KRW 16,838,280 for two workers within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date, as stated in the attached Table Nos. 1 and 3, including KRW 1,997,30 of the FF’s working hours from October 1, 2012 to June 11, 2013, as well as KRW 1,97,300 for March 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each benefit ledger;

1. Relevant Articles of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Part concerning the dismissal of public prosecution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( normal circumstances, such as circumstances in which wages cannot be paid);

1. The Defendant, as the representative of E (ju) in the Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, is an employer who ordinarily employs nine workers and operates a manufacturing business (mechanic processing).

The Defendant did not pay KRW 17,895,270 in total amount of wages of workers B and C within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date, as stated in the attached Table Nos. 2 and 4, including KRW 3,567,00 in March 2013 of B-C, which had worked from February 4, 2013 to June 20, 2013 at the same place of business, as stated in the attached Table No. 2 and 4.

2. This part of the facts charged is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and cannot be prosecuted against the employee’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act.

According to the written agreement bound to the trial records, workers B and C after the prosecution of this case.