A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Defendant

A is a current newspaper reporter as a person who has substantially operated D, and Defendant B is a person with no certain occupation.

1. On June 30, 2015, the Defendants, who were in the custody of the head office of Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, in the Ministry of Employment and Labor, prepared a petition kept in the said branch office for the purpose of having the victims E be subject to criminal punishment.

In the petition, the content that “the respondent E was in arrears with wages for six months as the owner of D’s company,” and the actual operator of D, rather than the defendant A, entered into a verbal contract with the victim to employ the victim under the condition that he/she concurrently serves as the representative of the above newspaper company and the director general, and the defendant B conspired to file a petition against the victim upon the recommendation of the defendant A, even though he/she had not worked as the above newspaper company.

As such, even though the Defendants knew that the victim is only the representative in the name of D and that the Defendant A should pay wages, they concealed this fact, and submitted the above petition to the employees of the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s Gyeonggi-gu Civil Service Office, whose name is unknown at June 30, 2015, and did not request the victim to submit it.

2. Defendant A’s insult around 13:45 on July 8, 2015, at the 1st floor office of the Gyeonggi branch office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, Defendant A claimed that Defendant A was the actual operator of D and claimed that the victim was the actual operator of D while investigating the real overdue wages against the victim E at the 1st floor office of the Gyeonggi branch office of the Gyeonggi branch office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and that Defendant A was punished for a dispute, and Defendant A would not be distorted to the victim in the context of G, who is the F, B, and supervisor, who was investigated together. He want to do so. I want to do so, because he was a journal. If he was a journal, he would be only a corporation other than an Arabic corporation, and I would be able to pay for this portion. It is good that legal common sense would pay for it.” It is why he or she should not be why he or she she is fforth, such as franch.”