beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.05.16 2013고단931

근로기준법위반등

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine for negligence in KRW 8,000,000 (Mive million).

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of G Co., Ltd. in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government who employs nine full-time workers and engages in system software development and supply business.

From October 1, 2004 to September 28, 2012, the Defendant did not pay an amount equivalent to KRW 3,635,604, and retirement allowance of retired workers H within 31,230,130 within 14 days from the date of retirement, without an agreement between the parties on extension of the due date.

In addition, the Defendant did not pay an amount equivalent to KRW 82,690,671 in total for three retired workers within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date, as stated in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each petition of H, I, and J;

1. Employment insurance history bureau (H, I, and J);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the postal service statement;

1. Articles 109 and 36 of the Labor Standards Act (the point of payment of wages), Article 44 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for the violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act which is heavier than the nature of the crime;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the weight of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act against H, the largest number of concurrent crimes);

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.