Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.2 million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the actual business owner B, who employs five full time workers and operates a furniture manufacturing business. The Defendant did not pay KRW C’s retirement allowance of KRW 10,003,144 working from September 25, 200 to March 15, 2010 at the above place of business within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on extension of the due date between the parties concerned.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by a special judicial police officer in charge of Gap (including any substitution);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on interim settlement and confirmation of each retirement allowance;

1. Article 109 (1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act applicable to criminal facts and Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the same Act;

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act in the Labor House Detention Act: (a) paid retirement allowances to C in the form of interim settlement each year; (b) the Defendant did not know that the interim payment of retirement allowances was invalid; (c) there was no intention to pay wages; (d) the Defendant paid 60% of average wages of 30 days each year with the interim settlement as above; and (e) the Defendant did not pay only 40% of average wages by paying 60% of average wages of 30 days each year; and (e) most of the unpaid retirement allowances claims are limited to the retirement allowance obligations of 77,648 won after the expiry of the extinctive prescription period, and the Defendant paid KRW 1

On the other hand, retirement allowances are generated upon the termination of labor relations and the interim settlement of retirement allowances is merely a case where part of retirement allowances were paid in advance before retirement by agreement of the parties concerned. Thus, even if the interim settlement was valid, if the interim settlement was made, if the interim settlement is a waiver of a part of retirement allowances, it is null and void in violation of the Labor Standards Act, which is a mandatory law. As the defendant claims, 60% of average wages of 30 days each year, as the defendant claims, the interim settlement was made as retirement allowances.