The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the payment of wages remains unpaid.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of the corporation, Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 408, who runs civil engineering and design business using 12 full-time workers.

The Defendant dismissed D on November 30, 2012, which was employed on April 16, 2012 and worked as a civil designer, and did not immediately pay KRW 3,941,280 corresponding to the ordinary wage for 30 days on the date of dismissal, even if he did not pre-announce his dismissal 30 days before the dismissal.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the draft D;

1. Relevant Article 110 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 110 subparagraph 1 and 26 of the Labor Standards Act concerning criminal facts;

2. Fine of 500,000 won to be suspended; and

3. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse.

4. The portion of rejection of prosecution under Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the fact that the defendant has no previous conviction in the same kind, the confessions and reflects the crime, the full amount of the money in arrears paid to the victim and the full agreement

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant did not pay KRW 13,742,510 of D’s wages from August 2012 to December 2012, which was retired under the foregoing circumstances, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on extension of the due date.

2. We examine the judgment. The case is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act. According to the “Agreement on Withdrawal of Accusation (Filing of Complaint) and Agreement” written by the victim, the above victim may recognize the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the Defendant on July 5, 2013, which is the date of the instant indictment.

3. According to the conclusion, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.