근로기준법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
B is an individual construction business operator in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, and the defendant is a representative E Co., Ltd. located in Ansan-si, Seoul, who runs a construction business with 30 full-time workers.
On October 25, 2015, Co., Ltd. subcontracted the steel reinforced concrete process among the "G New Construction Project" located in Busan City F, Inc. to B, a personal construction business operator who does not register his/her mold in accordance with the Framework Act on the Construction Industry on the same day.
Where a construction business is subcontracted two or more times for a subcontract, if a sewage supplier who is not a constructor registered under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, etc. fails to pay wages to his/her workers, he/she shall be jointly and severally liable to pay wages to the workers employed by a sewage supplier and a sewage supplier.
The Defendant, even though he was directly supplied by B, who is a subcontractor B, but was a subcontractor B, did not pay KRW 18,90,000 within 14 days from the date of retirement, without the agreement between the parties concerned, for the total amount of wages of 15 workers indicated in the daily list of crimes employed from October 25, 2015 to April 1, 2016.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. A protocol concerning the suspect B of the police;
1. A truth-finding statement;
1. According to each authentic document (Written Declaration (No. 227 pages of the Investigation Record), it is recognized that the Defendant agreed on May 23, 2016 to not claim against E any more than 15 workers as indicated in the daily table of the crime committed around May 23, 2016, and the Defendant agreed that the employees would not claim against E any further amount of the remaining amount when paying part of the physical wages to the said employees.
However, as of April 15, 2016, 14 days after the retirement of the above workers, the defendant did not reach any agreement on the wages of the above workers and the unpaid workers. Thus, the defendant merely based on the facts acknowledged earlier.