The defendant is a user who operates transportation business by using one full-time worker from 701 of the building B in the Militarysan City.

An employer shall clearly state wages, prescribed working hours, holidays under Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act, annual paid leaves under Article 60, and other working conditions prescribed by Presidential Decree to workers when concluding an employment contract, and shall deliver written statements in which the matters concerning the constituent items, calculation method, payment method, prescribed working hours, holidays under Article 55, and annual paid leaves under Article 60 are specified.

Nevertheless, on May 2, 2015, the Defendant concluded a labor contract with C, which had been employed as a driver at the same workplace, and did not deliver to the employee a document stating the items constituting the wages, the calculation method, the payment method, the prescribed working hours, the holidays under Article 55, and the annual paid leave under Article 60.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the statement protocol by the police complainant C;

1. Article 114 subparagraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the relevant Act on criminal facts;

2. A fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

3. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.

4. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Pronouncement [The fact that the crime of this case is committed at the time of and in compliance with the future labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, that there is no record of punishment other than the punishment sentenced twice a fine for a small amount of crime, and that the crime of this case was committed at the time when the employee C filed a complaint against the Defendant with the Defendant as the delayed payment of wages. Rather, the portion revealed that C was paid in excess of the amount of 1.6 million won by the Defendant, and that the amount of delayed payment of wages was subject to a disposition by the prosecutor, but it is deemed that C did not have any substantial and economic disadvantage due to the crime of this case (violation of the duty to specify the working conditions), etc.