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 becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (State)C, who is engaged in software development business and employs 10 full-time workers.

When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the wages, retirement allowances, and all other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

From August 9, 2010 to October 31, 2012, the Defendant paid 10,41,604 won in total and 6,138,57 won in retirement pay to retired workers D, including 251,496 won in June 6, 2011.

In addition, the Defendant did not pay the total of KRW 56,990,194 for six employees and the total of KRW 23,596,533 for four employees as stated in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning E, F, G, H, I, and D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the grounds for sentencing as follows)

1. In light of the fact that the sum of the Defendant’s unpaid wages, etc. for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. reaches eight million won, and even though there was a business case under progress at the time of investigation by an investigation agency, the full payment was not made even at the time of the closing of argument in this court, the crime is serious.

However, the defendant seems to have continuously endeavored to pay the overdue wages, etc. and has received a fine twice in violation of the Labor Standards Act.