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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Criminal facts

Some of the facts charged were corrected.

The Defendant is a representative of the “Chyeong-gu” located in Busan-gu, Busan-do, who ordinarily employs five workers and engages in the wholesale and retail business.

Where an employee retires, an employer shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 30,133,380 of retirement allowances to employees D, who were employed in the said workplace from February 1, 2002 to May 31, 201, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment period.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part of each protocol concerning the suspect interrogation of the police against the accused;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D;

1. Labor contract, entrustment agreement (506 pages of investigation records), inquiry of transaction details (9 pages of investigation records), application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the benefit ledger;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense and Articles 31 and 9 of the former Guarantee of Retirement Benefits of Workers (amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 25, 201)

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The facts charged in the instant case are sufficient to be found guilty on the following grounds for conviction under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The retirement allowance system under the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits has been accumulated without paying a part of wages to workers, and it has been paid in one year or more with basic financial resources to workers in lump sum when they retire. In essence, it has the nature of post-paid wages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90760, May 20, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8333, Mar. 30, 2007). Defendant entrusted the operation of the workplace as indicated in its judgment with D around May 31, 2011.