Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a representative of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (ju) who employs 53 full-time workers and operates a village bus transportation business.

Any party concerned shall comply with an order of remedy or decision of dismissal made by a local Labor Relations Commission within ten days from the date of filing an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, or with respect to an order of remedy or decision of dismissal made by the National Labor Relations Commission within fifteen days and the order of remedy or decision of dismissal becomes final and conclusive because it fails to institute an administrative

Nevertheless, the Defendant filed an administrative suit with the Seoul Administrative Court regarding an order for remedy, which ordered workers E to be reinstated until August 6, 2012, and to pay the amount corresponding to the period of dismissal, but was dismissed. After the Seoul High Court appealed and was dismissed, the Defendant did not appeal to the Supreme Court but did not pay the amount corresponding to the wages during the period of reinstatement or unfair dismissal, even though the order for remedy became final and conclusive on September 17, 2013 without filing an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Summary of Evidence

1. Protocol of examination of a witness F in the second protocol of trial;

1. A written adjudication, each written judgment, and a confirmation and certification institute;

1. Application of statutes governing the imposition of charges for compelling compliance;

1. Relevant Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 111 of the Labor Standards Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Before the determination of the instant remedy order as to the defense counsel’s assertion, the labor contract with E has already been terminated on November 4, 2012 due to the expiration of the period of validity on November 4, 2012, the benefits of remedy was lost due to the impossibility of reinstatement. In calculating the amount of wages during the period of dismissal to be paid to E, the amount vary depending on whether the amount of reinstatement differs depending on the meaning of reinstatement and the amount equivalent to wages to be paid to E. The Defendant specifically indicated the meaning of reinstatement and the amount equivalent to wages to be paid to E.