The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as a user who operates construction machinery leasing business as the representative of Changwon-si Masan-si B, was employed from October 12, 2016 to 30 days of dismissal, and did not pay KRW 3,596,940 equivalent to the ordinary wages for 30 days on April 5, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement of public nature;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a petition;

1. Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 26 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of fines;

1. Penalty fine of 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see the following grounds for sentencing) of the suspended sentence

1. The alleged defendant gave D a three-day advance notice of dismissal to D workers, and D intentionally interferes with D’s business, and thus, D’s prior notice of dismissal or payment of pre-employment allowance is not required.

2. Determination

A. The purport of Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act stipulating that an employer shall give an advance notice at least 30 days in the case of dismissal of an employee, and that an employer shall pay not less than 30 days’ ordinary wages in the case of failure to give an advance notice 30 days’ ordinary wages is to give an employee a time or economic surplus to seek a new work in preparation for dismissal. As such, the employer’s advance notice of dismissal should be made by specifying a certain period of time or at any time by which the employee is informed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1383, Apr. 15, 2010). However, the Defendant, from March 8, 2017, stating that the time of dismissal would have been set or that it would have been anticipated that D would have been dismissed at any time by means of telephone, etc.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the defendant is forgotten in the past with D on March 10, 2017.