If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is the actual manager of F in Southyang-si E, who has operated a manufacturing business with six regular workers.

The defendant shall work in the above workplace from September 24, 2012 to December 20 of the same year.

The retired workers G did not pay KRW 1,600,000,000 for December 2012 within 14 days from the date of retirement, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of the G production;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a petition;

1. Article 109 (1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act applicable to criminal facts and Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the same Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the facts charged is serving at the pertinent FF’s workplace, from November 15, 201 to September 29, 2012.

The wages of KRW 1,100,000 for August 2012, the wages of KRW 2,900,000 for September 2012, and the wages of KRW 1,90,00 for retired workers shall work from June 15, 2012 to November 12 of the same year.

Wages of retired workers B, 1,500,000 won for November 2012, and from April 11, 2012 to the same year

7. By no later than 11.

H of the facts charged by retired workers C seems to be a clerical error.

The wage of KRW 1,00,000 for August 2012 was not paid respectively within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are those falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act.

However, according to the public trial records, it is recognized that workers D, B, and C expressed their intent not to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.