Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of the company E in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D2, who employs eight full-time workers and engages in construction business, etc.

The Defendant, while working in the said company from June 25, 2009 to February 8, 2012, did not pay an amount equivalent to the total of 35,486,584 won, such as wages of 2,490,320 won on April 2, 201 with respect to F retired from office, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without an agreement between the parties on extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the accused in the legal statement in the first trial record;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant criminal facts: Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparagraph 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act;

1. Commercial concurrence: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Detention at a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Provisional payment order: The dismissal of prosecution pursuant to Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; and

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the actual representative of G Co., Ltd. on the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2 level, employed 13 full-time workers and engaged in construction business, etc., and the Defendant did not pay the amount equivalent to KRW 15,600,000, which is the total of the wages of KRW 1,300,000 as wages of June 1, 201 to C retired from the said company from June 1, 201 to May 28, 2012, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment.

2. Since the above facts charged constitute a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, a public prosecution may not be instituted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act.

However, according to the agreement received by this court on April 3, 2013, it is recognized that the victim C withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant on March 28, 2013, which was after the date of closing the argument. Thus, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.