A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Criminal facts

The Defendant is a person engaged in personal construction business without trade name, who is given a subcontract for a metal interior work from a construction business entity and employs a daily worker, who carries out the relevant construction work together with him/her, and pays wages to workers who receive subcontract consideration.

Meanwhile, a substitute payment is a system under which the State pays instead the amount of money and valuables in arrears to retired workers without receiving wage suspension allowances and retirement allowances due to the bankruptcy of the company, and no person may receive a substitute payment by fraudulent or other illegal means.

Nevertheless, the Defendant conspired to “the Government to unlawfully receive substitute payments by pretending to meet the requirements for the payment of substitute payments such as the foregoing, even though it does not meet the requirements for the payment of substitute payments,” with the F, Certified Labor Affairs Consultant G, and the employees directly employed by the Defendant, who operated (State) E, the prime contractor, who is a contracting company upon the bankruptcy of the C.

On December 14, 2010, the Defendant submitted an application to make a substitute payment to a labor inspector’s name who belongs to the said labor office, and received KRW 6,300,000 for substitute payment, around April 14, 201, to the effect that, “The Defendant is a worker belonging to the Seoul East-gu Seoul District Office through Certified Labor Affairs Consultant G, and was not paid wages for July, 2009 due to the company’s bankruptcy.”

However, the Defendant is a personal constructor who deals with metal interior works under a subcontract for metal interior works from D, and was not a worker belonging to the bankrupt (State)C, and was paid the Defendant’s pay for the subcontract from (State)D to July 2009 and August, 200, and thus, constitutes a delay in payment of wages among the requirements for the payment of substitute payments.