1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 10,000 won.

Criminal facts

The Defendant is an employer who employs seven full-time workers as actual managers of D Co., Ltd., which operates C Private Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant private Co., Ltd.”) on the 6th floor of the building in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

The Defendant did not pay KRW 9,118,680 of the retirement allowances of E employed as a cleaning agent from September 1, 2009 to July 20, 2014, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each written statement prepared by the defendant and E;

1. A written calculation of average wages and retirement allowances;

1. Details of passbook transactions;

1. Application of statutes on business registration certificates;

1. Article 44 subparagraph 1 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act and Article 9 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserts that since around September 23, 2013, since the instant friendship was operated, the Defendant was not obligated to pay retirement allowances corresponding to the period prior to commencing the operation.

According to the Defendant’s argument, according to the aforementioned evidence, it is acknowledged that D, a Defendant or the Defendant’s company, took over the business from the former business owner of the instant friendship, and the circumstance that F, a former business owner, has reported the closure of business, not the change of business, and G or D, a new business operator, was registered, does not interfere with the above recognition. Therefore, the Defendant succeeds to the labor relationship between E and the former business owner due to the effect of takeover of business.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay retirement allowances corresponding to the whole period of employment of E.

2. The defendant asserts that since the operator of the private interest household in this case is D Co., Ltd., the liability for the unpaid retirement pay should be borne by D Co., Ltd., and the defendant is not liable.

3. Workers' retirement benefits;