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, as the actual manager of D in both weeks, is an employer who ordinarily employs seven full-time workers, and is engaged in manufacturing business. The “2013.......” as stated in the facts charged in E-2012, which works from April 2, 2012 to November 22, 2012 at the above workplace, is obvious that it is a clerical error in the “2012........” The Defendant is judged not to affect the Defendant’s right of defense, even if it is acknowledged as above without changing the indictment.

10. Wages of KRW 2,200,000, and wages of KRW 1,610,000 on November 2012 were not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Part concerning the dismissal of prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the actual manager of D in both weeks and engaged in the manufacturing industry using seven full-time workers. The Defendant did not pay KRW 2,700,000 and retirement allowances of KRW 6,664,770 as of October 7, 2012 at the same place of business as of May 7, 2010 to November 12, 2012 without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment.

2. The judgment is based on the case that falls under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits. According to the records of this case, the worker B withdraws his wish to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case. Thus, this part of the prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.