A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four 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 an employer who executes a new construction site for multi-household housing in both States under a subcontract for 59,357,000 won of the total construction amount (hereinafter “the instant framework construction”) from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) operated by C (hereinafter “D”) with an individual constructor and 20 full-time workers.

The Defendant did not pay 58,025,00 won in total for 24 workers within 14 days from each retirement date without any agreement between the parties on the extension of payment deadline, as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including 5,830,000 won for February 2016, 2016 to February 13, 2016, as well as 5,830,000 won for 24 workers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness F, A, G, and H;

1. Each police statement made to F and H:

1. The details of calculation of personnel expenses for workers at the new site of multi-household construction, E on-site work workers, daily personnel expenses for workers at E on-site work, E on-site work logs, E on-site work logs, E on-site work logs, E on-site work logs, E on-site work logs, E on-site work logs, E-day work logs, E-day work logs, construction company and owner's personal information, copy of corporate registry, copy of E on-site land registry, certified copy of land registry, construction work subcontracting contract, telephone, etc. (the defendant asserts that he/she is not the employer who has employed workers at F, etc. and performed the instant framework work, but G.

However, the Defendant, at this Court, entered into a subcontract agreement with D lending one’s name.

Recognizing that it was recognized that “the current status of calculation of personnel expenses for workers at the scene of new construction of multi-household houses,” “the daily personnel expenses of workers at the E site,” and “part of the work on tree trees at the E site,” related to the instant aggregate construction.

was stated.

In addition, the defendant appears to have been residing in the office located at the site of the Alley Corporation and directly managed the site.