Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

Each "suspect" shall be as stated in the crime in the attached Form except where each "suspects" is dismissed as "defendants".

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement by the labor supervisor for C;

1. A written petition;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes by cutting down text messages;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act for Selective Labor, Article 110 Subparag. 1, Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act, and the selection of fines for each crime;

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. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (the payment of the pre-employment allowance)

1. A worker C was absent from work without permission because his/her working attitude was not good, which constitutes an exception to the notice of dismissal under the proviso to Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Labor Standards Act [Attachment] 9.

Therefore, the defendant is not obliged to pay the pre-employment allowance to the worker C in accordance with the above provision.

2. However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant’s dismissal of workers C, as prescribed by Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Labor Standards Act [Attachment Table 9], is deemed to have caused enormous hindrances to the business or caused property damage in light of social norms.

In such a case, it is difficult to deem that the case falls under “.”

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

① On March 30, 2016, C set a holiday as “four times a month” at the time of entering into an employment contract with the Defendant. On August 24, 2016, C expressed that, in order to stop working on the following day, C would not work on August 25, 2016, and did not work on the following day after leaving the workplace after leaving the workplace, C would have an obstacle to the Defendant’s business.