beta
Text
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.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is an employer who is engaged in construction business with his/her address in Speaker C and employs two full-time workers without a certain trade name.
When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.
Provided, That the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.
The Defendant did not pay the total of KRW 3,80,00,000 ( KRW 2.3 million for December 26, 2014, KRW 2870,000, KRW 510,000 for December 28, 2015, KRW 5,000 for January 25, 2015) and KRW 2,90,00 ( KRW 2.3 million for December 2, 2014, KRW 6.2,00 for wages ( KRW 6,00,000 for January 6, 2015, KRW 500,000 for January 7, 2015) within 14 days from each retirement date, without agreement on extension of the payment date between the parties concerned.
Summary of Evidence
1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;
1. Details of receipt, each receipt, and each place of work;
1. The defendant asserts that there is no wage to be paid any more than the amount of wages since he has already paid money above the wages to E and F for two working days, 150,000 won per day, 170,000 won per day, and 170,000 won per day in the case of E in the case of E. However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, E and F have worked for 24 days (E) through 32 days at each construction site, such as actual entertainment, kingsan, and Hai, and agreed between the defendant and the defendant for F, 20,000 won per day, and 170,000 won per day in the case of E, and the defendant has not paid wages as stated in the facts charged. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion that the defendant and the defense counsel did not accept (the defendant asserts that each of the construction works of this case was not so long, only because it is abstract, at the time that the defendant directly visited the construction site of this case.