The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the attached list of crimes (2) shall be written.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Co., Ltd. who runs a construction business with ten regular workers.

When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from December 1, 2013 to January 22, 2014 while entering into the “H new construction work” in Pyeongtaek-si G with a contract concluded by F Co., Ltd. on April 30, 2013.

Wages 2,821,00 won for retired workers I and 4,574,020 won in total for five retired workers, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes List (1), were not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each written petition;

1. Details of arrears of each worker;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each part-time wage ledger;

1. Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. A fine of one million won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (the charge in this case is recognized and the error in the indictment is against the company, there is no history of punishment for the same kind of error, and there are circumstances to take into account some of the grounds for payment of wages as wages could not be paid to workers due to the suspension of payment of construction expenses by the company in charge of the dispute resolution, which is a contracting company, and the fact that the Defendant paid a considerable amount of wages to workers who did not reach an agreement seems to be a daily-service worker who supplied the above daily-service workers at the construction site, and the Defendant appears to have paid most wages to K, etc.

unpaid.