The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Legal doctrine 1) G is not obligated to pay unused leave allowances for annual paid leave, because G did not submit an annual demand for paid leave.

2) Even if an employee makes a late payment of wages for business reasons, if the employee does not faithfully prepare a written agreement, the employee shall be sentenced to conviction. Thus, Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act is unconstitutional.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the annual paid leave allowance is paid when the employee provides labor not using the previous year’s annual paid leave that occurred in return for the previous year’s work. This is not determined on the basis of whether the annual paid leave is applied for.

Article 60(5) of the Labor Standards Act cited by the Defendant based on the basis that the employer grants annual paid leave at the time requested by the employee, but if granting leave at the time requested by the employee seriously impedes the operation of the business, the period may be changed. If the employer provides labor without using annual paid leave even if he/she did not request annual paid leave pursuant to the above provision, the annual paid leave allowance arises.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

2) The Defendant asserted that Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act is unconstitutional in violation of the Constitution, and does not claim any violation of the constitutional principles.

B. In addition, the case where a victimized employee is not subject to the employer's punishment and the case where the damaged employee is only subject to the recovery of damage is fundamental.

As such, Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that no prosecution shall be instituted against the clearly expressed will of the victimized worker.