The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The facts charged No. B is a person who employs full-time workers under the name of “C” without a construction business license and operates a construction business, and the Defendant is a person who runs a construction business under the trade name of “F” in the name of “C” in the Daegu-gu D and the third floor E.

Around August 4, 2018, F Co., Ltd. entered into a subcontract with the effect that, while carrying out a new construction project ordered by the Daegu Office of Education, “H” was ordered by the Daegu Office of Education to pay KRW 95 million in total the construction cost of the above wage and material costs to B, the F Co., Ltd. shall be paid to B, by the 15th day of the following month after the end of each month.”

Where a project is implemented based on several tiers of contracts, if a subcontractor fails to pay wages to workers due to a cause attributable to a direct supplier, the immediate upper tier contractor shall be jointly and severally liable with the relevant sewage supplier.

Even if the Defendant, a direct demand and supply agent, did not pay the construction cost to B to the subcontractor on the date of payment of the contract amount set forth in the contract agreement without justifiable grounds, B was employed by himself/herself and worked at the above construction site from November 3, 2018 to December 17, 2018, and as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, the amount of annual wages of 5,610,000 workers retired from office working at the above construction site as shown in the attached Table, and the total of 15,65,000 workers retired from office did not pay the above wages to the above workers within 14 days from their retirement without any agreement on the extension of the due date of payment between the parties.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are the crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 44 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 16270, Jan. 15, 2019) and cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victimized employee pursuant to Article 109(2) of the same Act.

According to the records, the records are as follows.