The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the employer who actually operates the Dyoung childcare center located in the social welfare foundation C in the original state.

On September 23, 2007, the Defendant did not pay KRW 18,036,838 in total, including extended and night work additional allowances, annual monthly allowances, retirement allowances, etc., to E workers retired from office on September 8, 2009, within 14 days from the date of the above retirement, and on February 19, 2009, the Defendant did not pay KRW 31,751,469 in total, including extended and night work additional allowances, annual monthly allowances, retirement allowances, etc., to E on February 25, 2009 without any agreement between the parties concerned regarding the extension of the payment date, within 14 days from the date of the above retirement, and did not pay KRW 31,751,469 in total, including extended and night work allowances, and night work allowances, within 14 days from the date of the above retirement date to February 10, 2009 without any agreement between the parties concerned regarding the extension of the payment date.

2. Where there are grounds for dispute over the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc. on the market, it shall be deemed that there exists a considerable reason for the employer to not pay the relevant wages, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to find that the employer had an intention to commit a violation of Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there is a ground for dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. should be determined in light of the circumstances at the time of dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc., such as the reason for the employer’s refusal of payment, the grounds for such refusal, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the purpose of the business, and other matters, such as the purpose of the business, and the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. must be determined ex post facto, on the ground that the employer’s civil liability for payment is recognized, the Supreme Court should not readily conclude that the employer