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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an individual business operator who has performed the entry construction works into the underground pipelines by using five regular workers at the construction site in the Dong Sea C at the time of the Dong Sea.

When a user suspends his/her business due to a cause attributable to the employer, he/she shall pay at least 70 allowances for the relevant worker during the period of suspension.

However, even if the Defendant closed down business from January 1, 2015 to February 9, 2015 to D who worked from August 2014, the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,450,000 of the average wage as of January 2015, and KRW 711,290 of the shutdown allowance on February 2015 to D on the last day of each month, which is the regular wage payment day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Relevant provisions of the Acts concerning criminal facts, and Articles 109 (1) and 46 (1) of the Labor Standards Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The allegation that the Korea Electric Power Corporation was contracted by E and subcontracted to the defendant by the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

On December 20, 2014, when the construction is in progress, D’s negligence caused a tent reduction of the equipment, and the consultation on the payment of additional expenses required for replacement of equipment between the Defendant and E was interrupted on December 25, 2014.

On December 25, 2014, the Defendant ordered D to retire from office on the ground of occupational negligence through F on December 25, 2014, so there is no obligation to pay D business suspension allowances.

2. According to the evidence of the judgment, the fact that D, on December 20, 2014, was satisfying a tent satisfy in the middle of the Do in which D was working as a satra, and thereafter, G as a satra, the tent satum in the middle of the Do in which G was working as a satra, and the satisbro sat as above.