Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building and the user who directly performs the construction works of the building by employing ten full-time workers from September 3, 2012.

When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Provided, That the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from March 19, 2013 to April 24, 2013 at the above workplace.

The retirement D's wages of 1,800,000 won in April 2013 and 4,230,000 won in total were not paid respectively within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for the payment, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witnesses E, F, G, and fifth protocol of the fourth protocol of the trial, the witness H and the seventh protocol of the trial, the witness I and J respectively of the witness E, F, G, and the fifth protocol of the trial;

1. Statement of witness D in the protocol of examination of witness outside the court date;

1. Details of arrears and place of work in arrears;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The defendant's assertion of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that the cost of lawsuit is borne by the defendant asserts that the defendant is not the employer who directly performed the above construction since I had been entrusted with the whole construction of C-building.

The following facts are acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined in this Court, namely, ① the Defendant indicated the Defendant as “owner” or “darr” between I and I, and the content of I’s service is based on the “large-scale repair of the above building” and the change of use.