A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D who is a full-time user who uses five workers and operates a service business.

When an employee retires, an employer shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days from the date on which 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 138,458,542 in total for three employees, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, as well as KRW 104,166,090 of retirement allowances of retired workers E, working in the above workplace from December 3, 2001 to August 31, 201, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause of payment between the parties, without any agreement on the extension of the payment deadline between the parties.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (the date of the third public trial shall be the date);

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A written statement of F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each petition, inquiries into insurance history, and evidentiary materials requested for the payment of retirement allowances;

1. Article 44 of the Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, and Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for each worker selected as a result of the penalty, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is that the amount of unpaid retirement benefits in the instant case is not significant, and that the unpaid retirement benefits are not repaid to the victimized workers.

However, the defendant, as a representative of D's election, was assigned to the representative and served as a non-standing worker, and there was a large amount of retirement benefits from the victim's retirement. In light of the circumstances of the crime, there is a high possibility of criticism in light of the fact of the crime.

It can not be seen, some of the unpaid retirement allowances paid to the damaged workers, and the defendant has no criminal history to be referred to.