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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The representative of Daejeon Dong-gu Daejeon who is the defendant is the employer who operates general restaurants using ten full-time workers.

From May 4, 2006 to February 20, 2012, D's retirement allowance of KRW 17,740,650, which had been employed as the head of the main office, was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment. On February 20, 2012, D's dismissal without notice and did not pay KRW 1,500,000 for retirement allowance corresponding to the amount of ordinary wages for 30 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The argument and judgment of the defendant in the D's statement

1. The defendant asserts to the effect that there are reasons under the proviso of Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act, which not only voluntarily retired but also did not give notice of dismissal, such as D's unfaithful job attitude, etc. However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant dismissed D without the prior notice of dismissal, and the reason for the defendant's assertion alone does not seem to cause enormous impediment to the "highness" business or cause property damage. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

2. The Defendant asserts that he has no obligation to pay retirement allowances calculated during the period of his service before he takes over his business, but the Defendant is obligated to receive retirement allowances calculated from May 4, 2006 as D’s employer upon succession of labor relations with D due to business takeover and pay D retirement allowances. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

Application of Statutes

1. The relevant provision on criminal facts is only different from the name of the crime and applicable provisions of Acts, and the facts charged are generally identical, and there is no risk of causing substantial disadvantages to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense.

Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the former Labor Standards Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11270, Feb. 1, 2012).