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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, as the representative of C in the Haak-gun, is a user who runs the automobile parts manufacturing business by employing ten full-time workers.

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

Provided, That the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the above workplace C from January 7, 2019 to February 22, 2019, did not pay KRW 2.2 million of the retired workers D in January 2019 within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date, and did not pay the total of KRW 1,889,000 for each worker’s five wages within 14 days from the date of retirement, as stated in the [Attachment] Nos. 4-8 of the amount of delayed payment related to the extension of the due date between the parties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the written complaint, written complaint and written complaint;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

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

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

1. The remaining wages except KRW 1.5 million for D with the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (in light of the fact that a written agreement is submitted to the same purport as the following), were paid in the form of substitute payment (a written agreement was submitted by E, who participated in the interpretation of foreign workers, such as D, as an agent of the above workers). However, it appears that the above person participated in the instant complaint, etc., such as D, but there is no clear evidence to prove the delegation of authority over the cancellation of the complaint, and thus, the sentencing is limited to the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime.