The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative of the C Co., Ltd. in Kimhae-si B, who ordinarily employs not less than 10 workers and operates sales business.

An employer shall clearly state wages, contractual work hours, holidays under Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act, annual paid leaves under Article 60, and other working conditions prescribed by Presidential Decree to workers when concluding a labor contract, and shall deliver written statements in which matters concerning the composition, calculation method and payment method of wages, contractual work hours, holidays under Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act, and annual paid leaves under Article 60 are specified.

Nevertheless, when concluding a labor contract with a worker D who worked in the above workplace from August 16, 2017 to February 1, 2018, the Defendant specified wages, contractual work hours, holidays under Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act, annual paid leaves under Article 60 of the Labor Standards Act, and other working conditions prescribed by Presidential Decree, and did not issue a document stating matters concerning the composition, calculation method and payment method of wages, contractual work hours, holidays under Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act, and annual paid leaves under Article 60 of the Labor Standards Act to workers.

2. The defendant asserts that the defendant, at the time of concluding a labor contract with D, prepared two copies of the labor contract and delivered one copy to D at the time of concluding the labor contract, and there is a dispute over the facts charged.

3. Determination

A. There are statements in D’s investigative agency and this court as evidence that conforms to or conforms to the facts charged in the instant case.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged that the Defendant did not deliver a labor contract to D solely on the basis of each of the above evidence, in view of the following circumstances revealed by the court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence.

(1) D is the Daegu store of EM which, at the time of entering into a "labor contract" from an investigative agency to this court, has worked in Korea.