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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of the D Co., Ltd. located in Gyeonggi-do, and is an employer who conducts electronic equipment manufacturing business using five full-time workers.

The Defendant did not pay KRW 8,00,000 in total amount of wages in arrears, including KRW 4,000,000 in October 2012, and KRW 4,000,00 in November 2012, to E who worked from October 2012 to December 2012 at the said workplace, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

Summary of Evidence

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

1. Application of respective Acts and subordinate statutes of E and G;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act concerning criminal facts and Articles 109(1) and 36 of the same Act concerning the selection of fines

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the work site shall be asserted to the purport that E does not constitute a part-time employee under the Labor Standards Act.

The determination of whether a worker is a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act, regardless of the form of contract, shall be based on whether a worker has provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages. In determining whether a dependent relationship here exists, the determination of whether the contents of work are determined by an employer and are subject to the rules of employment, service regulations, and personnel regulations, whether a worker is subject to specific and direct command and supervision from an employer in the course of performing his/her duties, whether the remuneration has the characteristic of the worker itself, whether the wage has the characteristic of the worker itself, such as withholding tax on wage and salary income, and the matters concerning remuneration such as the continuity of the provision of labor relations and the exclusiveness and degree

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du524, May 27, 2005; 2006Da78466, May 31, 2007). Therefore, the same applies to this case.