beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.03.24 2017고정101

근로기준법위반등

Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is an employer who employs 23 full-time workers and operates a construction business as the representative of the Daegu Suwon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 118 Dong 201, and 201.

(a) When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred;

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay 6,30,000 won for the total amount of two wages, including 3,300,000 won for June 1, 2016, which was paid in June 2016, to employees E, who were employed in the said workplace and retired on July 1, 2016, as well as 3,300,000 won for the extension of payment period, respectively, until 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of payment period.

(b) An employer shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the grounds for payment occur, if the employee retires;

Provided, That the payment date may be extended by an agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay 14 days from the date of his retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date in the amount of KRW 7,072,917 of the retirement allowance D's retirement pay to the employees who worked in the above workplace on July 1, 2016.

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

In doing so, workers D and E may recognize on January 11, 2017, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted, that they expressed their intent not to be punished against the defendant in this court.

Therefore, Article 327 No. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.