[Defendant B] The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,00,000.

[2014 Highest 424] Defendant A is a business owner who, from September 15, 2006 to August 31, 2012, lent the name of spouse G from the underground floor of the building located in F in F in the city of Pakistan to operate the clothes processing business, etc. with the trade name of H, and from September 2012, Defendant A was a business owner who, after moving his/her place of business to the third floor of the same building, lent his/her name to J, operated the clothes processing business, etc. under the trade name of J.

1. Where an employer falls under any cause, such as bankruptcy, the Minister of Employment and Labor shall pay wages, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "substitute payment") on behalf of the employer if the retired worker requests the employer to pay wages, etc. that have not been paid, and no person shall receive substitute payment by fraudulent or other illegal means;

Nevertheless, around June 2012, Defendant A got worse due to the aggravation of the garment processing business’s business, and due to the decline of profitability and the failure to pay national taxes and debt burden. The fact is, despite the absence of the bankruptcy or closure of the above H, or the delayed payment of wages to workers, Defendant A conspired with workers or branch workers, and provided substitute payment in collusion with workers for reasons such as bankruptcy, etc., employees employed at H were retired, and received substitute payment by pretending that they did not receive the overdue wages at the time of retirement, and then received it by means of being separated from workers.

Defendant

A paid wages in cash to workers from June 2012 to August 2012 in order to pretend the delayed payment of wages, and around August 2012, at the above H’s workplace, AB (hereinafter the above workers and AB) who were the spouse of B,K, L, M, N, P, P, Q, Q, Q, R, S, T, U, V, X, Y, Z, A and the above B who were not working for the said H (hereinafter referred to as “worker, etc.”) were unlawfully supplied and received substitute payments, and then proposed that substitute payments be unlawfully provided and received and received, and then acquired, a substitute payment with the consent of the worker, etc. around that time.

Defendant .