D In July 201, E, a corporation, following the aggravation of its financial standing, did not pay wages to its employees and did not pay wages to its employees. Around July 2011, E, a corporation, with the aggravation of financial standing, had it receive substitute payments by infusing false workers or by unfusing the wages of existing employees, and had them receive substitute payments by dividing them.

In collusion with the above D even if the Defendant is not an employee of the above E, on January 10, 2012, the Defendant entices the labor inspector in charge by applying for a substitute payment as if there were false wages, etc. as an actual worker at the following mountainous district office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor around January 10, 201, and then, he received KRW 3,00,000,000 from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation as substitute payment, thereby receiving substitute payment in an unlawful way.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement made to the effect that the defendant prepared and submitted a written claim for substitute payment even though he/she did not actually work in the company;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning D;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the suspect;

1. Requests for cooperation in investigation (12 pages of investigation records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to request a substitute payment (record 371 to 372 pages);

1. Relevant provisions of Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, subparagraph 1 of Article 28 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact that the person received the urgent wage in an unlawful manner);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Penalty of one million won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day);

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da15488, Apr. 2, 2011)) provides that the Defendant and the defense counsel may claim a substitute payment without careful consideration of his/her own act upon the solicitation of his/her mother.