In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

Defendants are full-time users engaged in software development and supply business, etc. using 10 full-time workers as operators of D Co., Ltd. located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building.

In collusion, the Defendants did not pay KRW 4,218,278 in the aggregate of KRW 1,565,918, including the wages of workers E, and KRW 2,652,360, including retirement allowances, from September 19, 2018 to September 30, 2019, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Labor contract, etc. (Evidence Nos. 11);

1. A detailed statement on the calculation of retirement allowances and a statement on the wages (a list No. 20 of evidence);

1. Application of the specifications of the E-Retirement Allowance and the statutes governing payment verification;

1. The Defendants of the relevant legal provisions pertaining to criminal facts: Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact of unsettlement of wages, etc.); Article 44 Subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact of failure to pay retirement benefits)

1. Commercial concurrent defendants: Selection of a fine under Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of violating the Labor Standards Act and the crime of violating the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and the punishment imposed on the crime of violating the heavier Labor Standards Act): The Defendants shall be punished by a fine.

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the Provisional Payment Order were unable to receive an application from a person who has been on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and in particular, Defendant A committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime and was punished for the same kind of crime.

However, the defendant seems to have made the best efforts to recover the damage of the victimized worker, and the amount of damage suffered by the victimized worker was actually fully repaid through the payment procedure of substitute payment and direct payment.

In arrears, it is difficult to see that the amount of money in arrears is relatively large, and the damaged employee was in conflict at the time of service.