If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

The defendant is the representative director of the limited liability company C in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who is engaged in the taxi transport business using 187 full-time workers.

An employer shall pay wages exceeding the minimum wage determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Employment and Labor each year to workers subject to the minimum wage.

Nevertheless, from April 13, 2010 to August 10, 2012, the Defendant works as a driver at the same workplace.

On July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, as shown in attached Table 1, the Si wage of 2,211 to Si wage of 3,176 won, and Si wage of 4,320 won from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201, the Si wage of 2,024 to Si wage of 3,217 won, and Si wage of 3,217 won from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201, respectively, were paid from the minimum wage of 4,580 won from January 1, 201 to May 31, 2012 to Si wage of 3,150 won, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to E, F, D, and G;

1. Relevant Articles 28 and 6 (1) of the Minimum Wage Act and the selection of fines for criminal facts;

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

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

1. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the indictment concerning the rejection of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that from June 14, 2005 to September 30, 2012, the Defendant did not pay 6,958,379 won in total on the 10th day of each month, a regular wage payment date, to G who works as a driver at the workplace operated by the Defendant from July 1, 2010 to September 30, 2012, including 6,241,845 won below the minimum wage.

The above facts charged are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act. According to the records of this case, the prosecution of this case is instituted.