Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as a personal building business operator of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was an employer who had five full-time workers at the same construction site, and the Defendant did not pay 24,25,000 won in total of seven workers as indicated in Articles 2 through 6, 10, and 11 of the attached Table of Crimes, including the wage of KRW 3.7 million, on June 2, 201 of H, who worked as a wooden hole from March 2, 201 to June 26, 201, within 14 days from each retirement day, which is the date on which the cause for the payment occurred, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Statement to C and J by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as C, to the authentic statement of preparation and a statement of payment by 11 workers;

1. Article 109 (1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act concerning the facts constituting an offense.

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

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

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of this part of the facts charged is an individual building business operator who is an employer with five full-time workers of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the defendant did not pay 9,05,000 won in total for four workers as of June 2, 201, as indicated in attached Table 1, 7, and 9,000 won, including the wage of KRW 3,125,00,000, working as a coverer from March 2, 201 to June 26, 2011 at the above construction site, within 14 days from each retirement day, which is the date on which the cause for such payment occurred, without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. We examine the judgment. This part of the facts charged falls under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and thus cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the same Act. According to the records, workers C, D, E, and F wish not to punish the Defendant on September 25, 2012 and December 11, 2012.