Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as a building equipment business operator, was employed by the Defendant during construction of a fire-fighting machine at the construction site of an officetel in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and did not pay a total of KRW 2,890,000 to workers D’ wages around February 16, 2017, and did not pay KRW 11,130,000 for five workers within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of occurrence of the cause for payment, without agreement on the extension of the day of payment between the parties, as described in paragraphs 1 through 5 of the attached crime sight table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the special judicial police with regard to D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the petition filed by D and six other persons;

1. Article 109 (1) and Article 36 of the Act on the Standards for Relevant Acts concerning facts constituting an offense and Articles 109 (Selection of Punishment) of the Labor Standards Act;

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. The part dismissing a public prosecution under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment

1. The summary of the facts charged as to the violation of each Labor Standards Act with respect to B and C was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the reasons for payment, without the agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment period between the retired workers B and C, while working at the workplace as indicated in Articles 6 and 7 of the List of Crimes committed by the Defendant.

2. The facts charged in this part of the judgment are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act. Workers B and C of the victimized party withdrawn his/her wish to punish the Defendant after the instant indictment (see, e.g., written withdrawal of the complaint filed on September 4, 2017). The indictment is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.