A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”), who actually operates the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) and the said Co., Ltd. (the above Co., Ltd. (the representative director E) was indicted for violating the Guarantee of Wage Claim Security Act, including all the facts charged in this case, and was sentenced not guilty, but was sentenced to the verdict of acquittal,

F, G, H, and I are workers employed in the construction site after receiving a subcontract part of the construction site, and F, G, H, and I are employees employed in the construction site, and they were indicted under the charge of violating the Guarantee of Wage Claims Act, including all the facts charged in this case by J as the Seoul Central District Court 2014 high 790 high 790, which was sentenced not guilty as to the facts charged in this case, and the prosecutor appealed and is currently pending in the appellate trial.

It is a labor company that vicariously executes the procedures for receiving substitute payments such as F.

The facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant was awarded a subcontract to the adjoining area of the D construction site and had daily workers, such as F, work at the D construction site; (b) the Defendant, even though he was not entitled to a substitute payment due to D’s bankruptcy, was willing to receive a substitute payment by submitting documents as if he did not receive wages.

The Defendant, at the Seoul Eastern Branch Office of the Seoul Regional Labor Office, had F work as an employee employed by D from December 2, 2009 to March 2010, but did not receive a pro rata wage on March 201, the Defendant had F receive a false statement of his/her intention to punish E as delayed payment of wages, along with a printed-out report prepared by the Defendant. On April 5, 201, the Defendant applied for a substitute payment such as a confirmation document stating the details of overdue wages prepared by the Defendant by F and J at the Seoul East Branch Office of the Seoul East District Office.