A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of five months.

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 2012, the Defendant had become aware of the introduction of C, as well as D, and registered the business as E (the location: Incheon Bupyeong-gu F) with the name of D, but the Defendant had engaged in mobile phone parts manufacturing business at a separate place for each separate account.

Under the above agreement, the Defendant and D employed each worker at a separate place, and supplied the mobile phone parts to the Customer by manufacturing them, and thereafter, the amount received from the Customer was divided according to their production volume.

The Defendant separately manages the revenue and expenditure of each of the Defendant with D’s foreign exchange bank accounts (S), and D with D’s corporate bank accounts (T). On September 2012, the Defendant engaged in the business of assembling mobile phones by employing H and other workers in G factories located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu.

D Meanwhile, while assembling a cell phone with employees employed by themselves in a separate factory near the above G factory, around April 2013, D was integrated with the above G factory and work together with the employees of the defendant who had been working at the above G factory.

On May 2013, the Defendant, among the employees employed by the Defendant, continued to employ 9 workers, including I, by moving 9 (I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q) from a new building located in front of the G factory to a new building in front of the G factory, and operating a business in a separate place from D.

Since June 10, 2013, D retired all workers employed by D and actually discontinued their business. However, the Defendant continued to pay wages to the said workers from the said RR building until September 11, 2013, and run a mobile phone manufacturing business.

2. When the Defendant came to know of the fact that retired workers of D want to receive the delayed payment by utilizing the substitute payment system, the Defendant was also aware of the fact that nine employees, including I, employed by D, as well as nine employees.