The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, as a real manager of D in Nam-ju, is an employer who runs a construction business using two full-time workers.

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

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 1,680,000, the sum of the F’s wage of KRW 840,000 on November 1, 2014, and wage of KRW 840,000 on December 2, 2014, which was worked as a tree worker from November 21, 2014 to December 17, 2014 at the site of two new construction sites, such as the Namyang-si New Construction Site, Namyang-si, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 1,680,00 within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

2. As to the facts charged of this case, there are evidence of guilt submitted by the prosecutor, ① the F’s authentic and authentic statement, ② the statement of confrontation to the police’s preparation, ③ the true statement, ③ the statement of deposit transaction, etc.

In this regard, ① the F’s authenticity and the Statement and the Statement, ② the F’s statement in the Police’s Dual Statement and the Statement by the Police’s Dual Statement that the Defendant consented to the use of the evidence, and the F’s authenticity was not recognized by the original Dualian State F. However, even though F’s possible and adequate efforts to attend, it was sufficiently proven that the attendance at court was inevitable or the F’s statement that could sufficiently guarantee the credibility of the F’s statement stated in the said Statement and the Statement.

As such, it cannot be viewed that the F’s statement written in the above statement protocol was inadmissible (in itself, the contents of F’s statement written in the above statement protocol did not receive wages of KRW 4,480,000 from the Defendant and there are no objective data supporting the facts charged in the instant case). Other evidence submitted by the prosecutor is against F.