The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the obligation to liquidate money.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of Seo-gu Daejeon C 201, who is a user who operates beauty and beauty business by employing six full-time workers.

When an employer intends to dismiss a worker, he/she shall make a prior announcement at least thirty days, and if he/she fails to make such prior announcement 30 days, he/she shall pay the ordinary wages for not less than thirty days.

Nevertheless, on December 8, 2012, the Defendant dismissed workers E who were employed on March 10, 2012 and work for a beauty artist at the above workplace without prior notice, and did not pay KRW 1,248,370 as the pre-announcement of dismissal allowance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E;

1. Relevant Article 110 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 110 subparagraph 1 and 26 of the Labor Standards Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Penalty fine of 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. The rejection of prosecution under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence (see, e., Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act);

1. The summary of the facts charged is the user who is the representative of Seo-gu Daejeon District Court C 201 and operates beauty and beauty business by employing six full-time workers, and where a worker dies or retires, the defendant shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within 14 days from the time when the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 133,330 as wages from November 10, 2012 to November 11, 2012 of E, who worked from March 10, 2012 to November 11, 2012, to 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on extension of the due date.

2. To examine the judgment, the above facts charged constitute an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and cannot be prosecuted against the employee’s will expressed in accordance with Article 109(2) of the same Act.

However, according to the records, E is a worker.