Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the operator of the Gu, Gu, Si, B, C cafeteria in the third floor, and the user who ordinarily employs four workers and operates a formal business.

1. An employer who has not prepared the working conditions in writing shall clearly state the working conditions as determined by the Labor Standards Act, such as wages and the prescribed working period, in concluding a labor contract, and deliver the written statement specifying the said matters to the worker;

Nevertheless, the Defendant was employed from July 25, 2017 to September 22, 2017 and entered into a labor contract with a worker D as of September 22, 2017, and did not deliver a document specifying the working conditions.

2. An employer who has not paid pre-paid allowances shall, when he/she intends to dismiss a worker, do so at least 30 days prior to the dismissal, and if he/she fails to do so 30 days prior to the dismissal, he/she shall pay the ordinary wages for not less

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 3,256,50, which is the ordinary wage of 30 days in advance of dismissal, even though he was immediately dismissed on the job without prior notice at around 18:00 on September 22, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Protocols of examination of witnesses regarding D;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel regarding the confirmation of facts, such as telephone, etc. (D), and the corrective instruction of labor-related violations

1. The essential point of argument D is that “worker in probation” is an exception to the application of the pre-determination of dismissal under Article 35 of the Labor Standards Act, and therefore there is no obligation to pay the pre-determination allowance to the defendant.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, the Defendant’s assertion that D constitutes “worker in probation” is difficult to accept.

① The purport of D is that “the Defendant was employed as a regular kitchen and did not employ him as a probationary employee” in this Court.