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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a private teaching institute business by employing five full-time workers under the trade name of CK.

1. On September 19, 201, the Defendant did not conclude a labor contract by specifying the items of wages, calculation method, payment method, contractual work hours, holidays, etc. when employing E from the C&A institute on the third floor of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City D apartment as an instructor.

2. The Defendant, in violation of his/her duty to liquidate money and valuables, did not pay 3.5 million won of wages from February 19, 201 to February 29, 2012 of E, which was worked at the said C Research Institute from September 19, 201 to February 29, 2012, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without agreement on the extension of the E and the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. An investigation report (to be accompanied by data submitted by a complainant);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the factual confirmation of a private teaching institute instructor and transportation card inquiry details;

1. Article 114 subparagraph 1 of the relevant Act, Article 117 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 109 and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, concerning criminal facts;

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. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The instant indictment was instituted on the premise that E was on February 20, 2012, 22 (number), 27 (Monthly), and 29 (number (hereinafter referred to as “the instant wage payment date”). While E was on the same day and 22 days, E was paid on the same day, the wages up to 20 days were paid on the same day, 22 days were retired, and 27 days and 29 days did not work at work, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay wages for the said period.

2. The following circumstances revealed as evidence adopted and examined by this Court, i.e., E, a private teaching institute in this case.