A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an employer who operates a building business by employing two full-time workers in the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City C, 104 Dong 417.

On April 15, 2014, the Defendant did not pay the total amount of KRW 36,260,000 to two workers as stated in the attached crime list, including KRW 3,360,000 on October 1, 2013 to retired workers E, at the site of accommodation facilities located in Pakistan at the time of Pakistan, around July 1, 2013, without any agreement on the extension of the payment deadline, within 14 days from the date of retirement.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Part of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Work log, work contract documents, and H name cards;

1. The determination of whether a labor provider provided labor has provided labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages shall be made in accordance with the Labor Standards Act, such as notification of the result of handling, non-prosecution decision, and notification of the result of handling a reported case;

In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted by this court and completed the examination of evidence, the above worker E was correct against the owner F of the above accommodation facility owner who is not the defendant, and the owner of the above worker claimed that he was the daily worker employed by the defendant and appealed against the owner of the above accommodation facility as embezzlement, and the defendant also filed a complaint against the owner of the building in violation of the Labor Standards Act. The above petition and the complaint were all suspected, and they were ordered to be closed. According to the following facts and circumstances revealed by the above evidence, the above petition and the complaint are merely voluntarily asserted by the parties for their own interest, and it is difficult to conclude that the above worker of this case is the owner of the building, on the premise that he is the owner of the building. The worker of this case is a worker who provided work in the subordinate relationship with the defendant, so it is proved guilty of criminal facts.