근로기준법위반
1. The defendant is innocent. 2. The summary of the judgment of innocence of this case shall be published.
1. In the facts charged, the Defendant is a business owner who employs two full-time workers at the window D of Changwon-si and engages in artificial fishery in the name of “E”.
An employer shall provide a worker with necessary medical treatment at his/her expense or bear necessary expenses for a worker who suffers from an occupational injury or disease, and pay a compensation for suspension of work equivalent to 60/100 of average wages during the worker's medical treatment, and compensation for suspension of work for medical treatment and compensation for suspension of work shall be paid at least once a month.
The Defendant, at around 11:40 on March 5, 2012, performed the work of removing the panel of the second floor office in the “G company” located in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, and performed the work of removing the board of the Defendant’s employees at the second floor, and was incurred by the Defendant’s occupational injury, such as the high level of one meter higher than the floor of the board of one meter, and the left-hand side of the outer side of the H, but did not pay KRW 13,176,00 for compensation for business suspension during the period during which the H was suspended due to occupational injury from March 5, 2012 to July 4, 2012 at least once a month.
2. The facts charged of the instant case are premised on the Defendant’s employee’s provision of labor and the injury sustained. The following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, namely, ① the working space at which H et al. had been engaged in the human body construction at the time was in the same space as the facts charged, could have been easily known if H suffers the injury as stated in the facts charged. While H stated that she had been present at the time when she was present, she was present at the time when she was present, she stated that she was present at this court and she did not have any witness or memory, she stated that she was not present at the time when she was present at this court and she did not have been present at the time, and that she did not have any speech that she had been present at the time. ② At the time after the date stated in the facts charged, she stated that she did not have any fact that she had been present at the time, as well as that she did work after eating.