beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.10.24 2017고정1283

근로기준법위반등

Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as the C representative director in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, is an employer who runs the manufacturing business of clothing subsidiary materials using one full-time employee.

(a) When a worker dies or retires, an employer violating the Labor Standards Act shall pay him/her wages, compensations, or other money or valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred;

Nevertheless, the Defendant had worked from May 7, 2015 to April 5, 2017 at the same place of business and retired workers D’s wages of KRW 1,900,000 for October 2016, and monthly wage of KRW 3,200,000 for December 12, 2017, and KRW 3,200,000 for January 3, 200 for February wage of KRW 3,200,00 for February wage of KRW 3,200,00 for March wage of KRW 3,200,200 for March wage of KRW 3,200 for payment, and KRW 17,90,000 for each party without any agreement on the extension of payment date between the parties.

(b) An employer who violates the Act on Guarantee of Retirement Benefits of Workers shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the ground for such payment occurred, in cases where the worker retires;

Provided, That in special circumstances, the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 3,200,000 of retirement allowances of retired workers D within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline, as it worked from May 7, 2015 to April 5, 2017 at the above workplace.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are the crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the explicit intent of the victimized employee under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

In this regard, it can be recognized that the employee D expressed his/her intention not to be punished for the defendant after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applied.