Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the employer who runs the financial business (insurance sales) by ordinarily employing 15 workers as the representative of the Nam-gu Seoul (State) D'D located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu.

1. An employer who violates the Labor Standards Act shall, when a worker dies or retires, pay the worker wages, compensations, or any other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred, unless there exist any special circumstances;

Nevertheless, from March 4, 2013 to August 28, 2016, the Defendant did not pay KRW 4,429,040 in total, the wage of KRW 4,967,740 in July 2016 to E, who retired workers from the said workplace, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of the payment date between the parties to the agreement.

2. An employer who violates the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for a worker shall, in cases where the worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred, unless there exist any special circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay 18,779,920 won of retirement allowance for workers E within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of payment period between the parties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. E’s written petition;

1. The facts charged are denied to the effect that the Defendant paid both wages and retirement allowances. The details of the transfer of wages, the details of income, the employment contract for the position of the contracting party, the Kakao text, and the income specification.

However, in light of the following: (a) the statement of E in an investigative agency (which consented to the impeachment as evidence and does not separately make a request for a witness for impeachment); (b) the Defendant also recognized a criminal act by an investigative agency; (c) the obligation to pay wages and retirement allowances as stated in the facts charged at the first instance court of the relevant civil case (this Court Decision 2017Gaz. 2526); and (d) the Defendant appears to recognize the unpaid retirement allowance at least in the civil case above.