beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,091,609 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 13, 2015 to February 17, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a person operating the “E” located in Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter “E”), and the Plaintiff is a intellectual disabled person (intelligent index 76, and social index 56) who provided labor at the instant salt farm from December 2, 2007 to February 9, 2014.
B. On December 2007, the Plaintiff, “I will see whether I wish to see to frighting to frighting to frighting to frighting to 500,000 won at the instant salt farm.” On the Defendant’s proposal, the Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff with accommodation, i.e., providing the Plaintiff with frighting to frighting., the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff did not pay wages to the Plaintiff during the period in which the Plaintiff provided labor as stated in the paragraph.
C. On May 20, 2014, the Prosecutor of the Military Prosecutors’ Office of the Gwangju District Court who investigated the case related to the defendant filed a prosecution against the defendant, and against the defendant, the Prosecutor of the Gwangju District Court filed a prosecution against the defendant for the crime of inducing the plaintiff to pay wages in the manner that the plaintiff would not pay wages after having the plaintiff work at the salt farm of this case using mental and physical disorder of the plaintiff, and induce the plaintiff to work at the salt farm of this case from January 2008 to February 9, 2014, and did not pay the same amount of wages in the same amount as the crime of inducing the plaintiff to pay wages. On July 15, 2014, the Prosecutor did not prosecute the plaintiff as the Labor Standards Act to the effect that "the plaintiff violated the Labor Standards Act from January 1, 2008 to February 9, 2014."
The wooden Branch of the Gwangju District Court is above C.
As a result of a joint hearing of each criminal case described in the above facts charged on July 24, 2014, a suspended sentence of three years was sentenced to imprisonment for profit inducement and quasi-Fraud among the above facts charged, and a suspended sentence of three years was dismissed on the grounds that the injured party expressed his/her intent not to be punished for the violation of the Labor Standards Act.
A prosecutor.