Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, as the representative director of the D&C corporation located in Full-Time Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jeonsan-si C, the defendant is an employer who employs 32 full-time workers and engages in the newspaper manufacturing business.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the Defendant worked from March 12, 2012 to July 27, 2012 at the said workplace and retired E’s wage of KRW 1,200,000 in June 2012, and KRW 840,000 in July 2012, and other money and valuables (transport expenses) KRW 200,000 in the said workplace without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements concerning E;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act concerning criminal facts and Articles 109(1) and 36 of the same Act concerning the selection of fines

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the gist of the facts charged in this part of the dismissal of prosecution pursuant to this part of the order of provisional payment is that the Defendant provided labor from December 29, 201 to August 29, 2012, and that the Defendant did not pay KRW 5,240,000 in total, including the monthly wage of KRW 1,00,000 from June 29, 2012 to August 2012, 200 within 14 days from the date of withdrawal.

However, the above facts charged are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act. According to the records of this case, the victims have withdrawn their wish to punish the defendant on June 26, 2013, after the institution of the prosecution of this case. Thus, this part of the indictment is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.