Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the representative of the D Teaching Institutes in Asia, who is a full-time employer who runs the educational service business by employing eight full-time workers.

Defendant, who was employed by the said workplace from October 26, 1998 to May 4, 2016, did not pay KRW 431,488 for the unused Annual Allowances in 2013, KRW 629,20 for the unused Annual Allowances in 2014, KRW 75,040 for the unused Annual Allowances in 2015, and KRW 3,074,106 for the unused Annual Allowances in 2016 and KRW 41,815,839 for the unused Annual Allowances in 2016 without agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, G, and H;

1. Adjustment of each business registration certificate, retirement income source collection receipt, each personnel order, each operation report, goods, current status of regular classes, confirmation certificate of the fact of a private teaching institute instructor, safety education certificate on children's commuting buses, etc., production of banner/ leaflet, day schedule, D private teaching institute organization, English department/TLC log, employee increase, and holiday work;

1. A written calculation of average wages and retirement allowances;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on deposit transactions;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, and Article 44 Subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of a fine for negligence;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Reasons for conviction under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that E is not an employee of E and asserts that E is not an employee of the Defendant, since E is the representative of I (which changed the trade name to J; hereinafter “J”) from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2015 and is engaged in the personal business and engages in the business with the Defendant, the above period of time.

The purpose of whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act is to pay wages in substance regardless of the form of a contract.