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

The defendant is the representative director of the corporation C located in Dong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, who is operating the construction equipment leasing business using 30 full-time workers.

On August 23, 2011, the Defendant entered into a collective agreement in 2011 with the D Committee, and there were matters concerning wages among the contents thereof.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the collective agreement by failing to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 316,660,00, totaling KRW 316,660,000, which falls under the portion of wage in accordance with the said collective agreement, to E, who is employed as an engineer of other workshops, as well as KRW 125,00,00, which falls under the portion of wage in accordance with the said collective agreement. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23290, Nov. 1, 2011>

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Details of benefits, copies of wages and collective agreements, certificates of performance, copies of certificates of performance, and copies of wages and collective agreements of 201;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 92 subparagraph 2 of the relevant Article of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and Article 31 (1) of the relevant Act on criminal facts;

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 as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act was that on September 15, 201, the Defendant, who entered the construction site of the king apartment new construction company C on September 15, 201 and was employed as another work site engineer, and did not pay KRW 316,660 on September 10, 201, totaling KRW 66,660 on September 201, 201, KRW 125,000 on October 125, 201, and KRW 125,000 on November 125, 201.

2. The judgment is based on the case that falls under Articles 109(1) and 43(2) of the Labor Standards Act and cannot be prosecuted differently from the intent expressed by the victim under Article 109(2) of the same Act. According to the records, it is recognized that the employee E has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the Defendant on September 18, 2012, which is after the prosecution of this case.