Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of the Daegu Dong-gu Dispute Resolution D, who has operated service business with three full-time workers.

When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant worked in the company from May 8, 2012 to December 23, 2013, stated the “F” in the employee E indictment that was retired, but it appears to be a clerical error.

The retirement allowance of KRW 2,134,098 was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by witnesses E in the fifth trial records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to certificates of deposit transaction;

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

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Since the principal defendant has a loan claim of KRW 2.5 million against E, there is no retirement allowance to be paid by the defendant when offsetting the above loan claim and the retirement allowance claim of KRW 2.5 million.

2. In principle, since the market wages are paid in full to workers directly in currency, it is not set off against the worker's wage claims with the employer's claim against the worker. This is intended to protect the worker in an economic and social subordinate relationship, and the same holds true since the worker's retirement pay has the nature of the wage.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760 Decided May 20, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 88Meu26413 Decided May 8, 1990, Supreme Court Decision 99Do2168 Decided July 13, 199, etc.). The above legal doctrine is applicable.