Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Criminal facts

The defendant, as the representative of CFF in Kim Sea-si B, is an employer who runs a private teaching institute business by employing four full-time workers.

From December 16, 2013 to May 19, 2017, the Defendant, while serving as an instructor at the pertinent workplace, did not pay KRW 22,103,415 in total for four employees as well as KRW 8,475,102, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without any agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties concerned.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the respective legal statements of witnesses D, E, F and G to the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 44 of the Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 49 of the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for each worker selected as an employee;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which stipulate that the Defendant, as an employer, shall pay a certain amount of a retirement allowance in advance with the monthly salary that the Defendant pays between the employee and the employee, is null and void since the employee waives his/her right to claim a retirement allowance in advance. Thus, even if the Defendant paid a certain amount in installments to the employee according to the terms of the employment contract, it is not effective as a retirement allowance payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90760, May 20, 2010). In addition, in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the employee and the employee, and the various circumstances before and after retirement in each employment contract, it is reasonable to deem that the aforementioned agreement on the division of a retirement allowance was made only in the form of the division agreement to evade the payment of a retirement allowance, and therefore, the Defendant and his/her defense counsel, who was erroneous in the calculation of a monthly payment and retirement allowance, cannot be accepted (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da766, Dec. 27, 2013, 2013.