The summary of the facts charged in violation of the Labor Standards Act is that “B was at issue of worker C’s attitude on September 22, 2017, and did not pay 30-day ordinary wages as advance notice of dismissal even after dismissal without advance notice.” Since B was employed as a worker under probation, it did not pay the ordinary wages. As such, the Defendant was given testimony as to whether B was employed as a worker under probation.

Therefore, the defendant testified to the newspaper "1, 4, 3 months after the defendant has been employed as a training unit for C", "N, 4, 3 months have passed after the interview, and 2 months have passed after the opening, and 3 months have passed after the opening," and the prosecutor stated that "at the time, the defendant asked C to work as a training unit for six months," and that "after the opening, the part of the six-month training is not clear, but the business operator should be registered as a regular staff after the opening." In the same case, the defendant had a two-month training period and the three-month training period in the case of the new entry. There was a talk that the experience is about two months and the three-month training period in the case of the new entry. In general, the experience is about two months and the experience is about two months, and there was no statement about the development of new employee at the time, and the testimony was made for three months or more."

However, in fact, B was employed as a regular kitchen and did not employ C as a probationary officer, and B or the defendant will have a probationary period during C's interview.