A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

When the Defendant was awarded a contract to perform the D cafeteria for the operation of C and was unable to pay wages to the public and the public and private workers, the Defendant was willing to exempt the public and private workers from the liability for paying wages, and to file a false complaint with C for the purpose of having C criminal punishment.

On November 20, 2013, the Defendant submitted a petition to the effect that “the Defendant and 31 side members, including the Defendant themselves and E, did not receive wages from D representative C,” which was delegated by 31 members of the Daegu-gu Regional Employment and Labor Office located in Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, 231, and that “the Defendant did not receive wages from D representative C,” and on November 28, 2013, the Defendants, including the Defendant, submitted a petition to the effect that “the Defendant and 31 side members, including the Defendant, were unable to receive wages from the complainant,” and on November 28, 2013, upon receiving the authentic investigation from the said Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office, said petitioners, including the Defendant, were to receive 15-180,000 won per day from C related to D restaurant construction, and were employed as a daily worker and employed by the said construction work.”

However, the facts are that the defendant did not work as a daily worker employed by C in relation to D Remodelling work, but as a contractor who contracted the above work from C, and 31 other petitioners E et al. did not work as a daily worker employed by C, but employed by the defendant to carry out the above work contracted by C.

Accordingly, the defendant did not appeal C.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Statement of special judicial police officer against the defendant;

1. The Defendant asserts that the copy of the petition is not a contracting party for a cafeteria, but only a worker employed by C in connection with the above construction work, and that the Defendant’s petition of this case is not a non-existent one.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by this Court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, i.e., C, during the construction of the instant case.