If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is a person who employs approximately 12 full-time workers in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu Office Officetel 314 and operates D Co., Ltd. as an unmanned security company.

From February 26, 2001 to July 12, 2012, 201, the Defendant did not pay 6,706,474 won of retirement allowances for the above service period of the victim E, who was employed by the said company and retired from office, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant's legal statement (part that part of the retirement allowance was not paid);

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement E in the interrogation protocol prepared by the second and fourth special judicial police officers against the accused;

1. Statement prepared by each special judicial police officer in relation to E;

1. Employment contracts;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a retirement allowance calculation report and investigation report (verification with a labor inspector);

1. Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits and Articles 44 subparagraph 1 and 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, and Selection of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant's non-payment of part of the retirement allowance of E is true, or that E has agreed to pay the credit card price used for personal purposes on behalf of the company and offset it against the retirement allowance obligation of E

Wages for workers shall be paid in full to workers, so the employer shall not set off against the worker's wage claims with loans or claims arising out of tort against the worker, except for over-paid claims for the return of wages paid.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do2168, Jul. 13, 199). The evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and circumstances recognized by the records, namely, the defendant.