Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a business operator who employs workers in the AI in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si and operates a computer soft development business.

The Defendant worked for the foregoing company from June 18, 1990 to August 25, 2013, and did not pay KRW 26,998,806 of the retirement allowance of AK (crime 34) that was retired from office within 14 days from the date on which the cause for payment occurred, without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment deadline.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the AK's petition Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for Workers under the relevant Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, or a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Of the facts charged in this case, the part dismissing the prosecution of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the violation of the Labor Standards Act against the above victims and the violation of the Workers' Benefit Security Act in relation to the payment of wages and retirement allowances to B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, M, N, P, Q, Q, R, T, U, V,W, X, Y, Z, AAB, AA, AAC, AE, AE, AE, AE, AF, AF, AG, and H, and the summary of each of the facts charged is that the Defendant did not pay wages and retirement allowances to the above victims within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment date.

In light of the records, each of the above crimes is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, which cannot be punished against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits. In light of the records, each of the above victims expressed his/her intent not to be punished to this court. Thus, among the facts charged in this case under Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits is dismissed.