Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as an operator of Busan EF Co., Ltd., was employed by 200 full-time workers, engaged in the manufacturing of valves.

Defendant 1,261,356 won and retirement allowance 12,086,550 won and retirement allowance 12,086,550 won in total for retired workers G while working in the above workplace from March 18, 1991 to April 9, 2015, and did not pay within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on extension of the payment deadline.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the G’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act for the relevant Act on criminal facts, and subparagraphs 1 and 9 of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (which shall not be paid for retirement);

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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 is as follows: (a) the Defendant was working at a place of business from January 17, 2015 to March 9, 2015 and did not pay KRW 2,250,244 in total, and KRW 2,429,200 in total, and KRW 2,429,200 in total, and KRW 2,67,380 in total, and retirement allowance of retired workers D while working for the period from January 17, 2015 to March 9, 2015; and (b) from January 19, 2015 to March 9, 2015 to February 27, 2015, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

2. Each of the above facts charged is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

According to the record, the fact that workers B, C, and D have withdrawn their wish to punish the Defendant on January 8, 2016, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted by the injured person.