The Defendant did not pay KRW 43,50,960,00 in total for 11 wages, such as F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, etc. working at the above workplace within 14 days from the date of retirement, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The actual manager of the Defendant’s new summary E company is Q, not the Defendant, and the Defendant does not constitute an employer under the Labor Standards Act.

3. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the former Labor Standards Act provides that the subject of a violation of Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the said Act is an employer. Article 2(1)2 of the said Act provides that the term "employer" refers to an employer, a person in charge of business management, or a person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to matters relating to workers, such as an order to determine working conditions, such as workers' wages, welfare, labor management, etc., or an order or direction for business management, and the term "business management manager" refers to a person who is responsible for general business management and externally represents or acts on behalf of an employer with a comprehensive delegation from an employer for all or part of the business management, and "other person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to matters relating to workers" refers to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8364 Decided May 11, 2006). Therefore, in order to establish a crime of violating the Labor Standards Act against the Defendant, the Defendant falls under one of the following: (i) the business owner, (ii) the business manager, and (iii) the other matters relating to workers, who act on behalf of the business owner.

First of all, considering who is the business owner of the E company, E company is a personal business entity, taking into account the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.