Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of the D Company C located at the early stage of Si, who is an employer who runs a forestry landscape business with ten regular workers.

Defendant shall work at work site E at work site from October 16, 201 to December 7, 2011 at work site from March 16, 201.

The retirement worker F, as well as 1,575,00 won of wages of 1,575,000 won on October 201, 201, did not pay 16,900,000 won for the total of 10 retired workers within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for the payment, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Date of work, and written application for wages;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion on the police statement regarding F is that the instant wage was based on the contract between the Defendant and F, and that F did not have any obligation to pay the wage, as F did not complete the work.

In determining whether a contract constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, regardless of whether the contract is an employment contract under the Civil Act or a contract for work, in substance, whether the contract provides an employee with work in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages at a business or workplace (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da24250, Dec. 13, 1991). In addition, the worker provided a worker with work under the form of a contract for work.

Even if the form of employment is maintained in a subordinate relationship between the employer and the client's workplace while maintaining a subordinate relationship, it constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and such worker shall pay wages, etc. in accordance with Article 36 of the same Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do1685, Oct. 25, 1991). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the aforementioned evidence, including scambling and F’s statement, are as follows.