The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a business owner who has subcontracted the part of the E’s tin and unclaimed construction work from Company D at the site of the construction of the apartment complex in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City. The Defendant did not pay the total of KRW 22,930,000 of the E’s wages, including KRW 2,430,000, working from October 20, 201 to April 26, 201, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties.

2. Determination

A. Of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the above evidence in the case of F’s written statement and G’s written statement is not consented to the defendant as evidence, and it is not proved by the original person’s statement or by the person’s statement that it is the same as the contents of the statement. We examine whether the above evidence is admissible as evidence under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

According to the records of this case, the witness summons sent over 11 times after the court adopted F and G as a witness at the request of the prosecutor was sent to the effect that the witness summons sent over 11 times was not served due to the absence of each closed door or the addressee’s unknown, and that the F and G’s location detection result could not be known.

However, the court attempted to make a telephone call to notify F and G of the summons of a witness whenever the summons becomes impossible to serve, and even if a telephone call was made several times, F and G refused to appear or have continued to appear and expressed their intention not to appear in this court. Accordingly, the above evidence cannot be viewed as “where a person who needs to make a statement on the date of public trial is unable to make a statement because of death, disease, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause” under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.