1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of Namyang-si B and C located in 206 Dong 501 and is an employer who runs a service business (other contract) by using 7 full-time workers.

When an employee retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within 14 days from the date of retirement, unless otherwise agreed on the extension of the payment deadline.

In addition, the Defendant did not pay KRW 6,073,662 of F’s retirement allowance of KRW 27,686,285 of employees, as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, as stated in the following list of crimes, within 14 days from the date of retirement, even though there was no agreement between the respective parties on the extension of payment dates, the Defendant did not pay KRW 27,686,285 of the total amount of seven employees’ retirement allowance as stated in the list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each written appeal and each written statement;

1. Application of the statutes on retirement allowance details;

1. Article 44 of the Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, and Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for Workers Eligible for the Voluntary Retirement, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for the instant crime of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the following reasons for sentencing) is that the Defendant’s employees did not pay the total of KRW 27,686,285 of retirement allowances within 14 days from the date of retirement to the employees employed by the Defendant.

The crime of failing to pay retirement allowances within 14 days from the date of retirement of workers is likely to be criticized as it impedes the livelihood and stable livelihood security of workers.

In the case of this case, the amount of retirement allowances not paid by the defendant is not significant, there is no fact that the defendant has repaid some of the above retirement allowances from the investigation stage to this court, and there is no previous repayment plan, and there is no fact that there is no agreement with the victims, so the crime is not good.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant is the first offender, and the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and reflects them.