근로기준법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error or misapprehension of the legal principle) argues that the Defendant did not take the procedure for retirement from the place of business without permission and did not pay wages intentionally after leaving the place of business without permission. However, it is recognized that the Defendant did not pay wages, etc., regardless of the fact that he could have sufficiently contacted with E.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which accepted the defendant's assertion and acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant, as the representative of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, is a person running a Chinese restaurant using ten full-time workers.
The Defendant did not pay wages, annual unused allowances, overtime and holiday work allowances, total amount of KRW 5,203,025 of workers E, who worked in the said workplace from November 29, 201 to October 8, 2013, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.
B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that there is no possibility of lawful act, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence, i.e., ① E leaves the place of business without permission on October 9, 2013, ② the Defendant paid monthly salary of KRW 1.8 million until September 28, 2013, and he was present at the Labor Office and was investigated on October 31, 2013. On March 13, 2014, the instant delayed money and valuables, etc. were transferred to the E account transmitted through the labor inspector; ③ the lawsuit claiming wages against the Defendant was withdrawn or withdrawn; ③ the lawsuit claiming wages against the Defendant was concluded as the withdrawal or withdrawal of the lawsuit; and the Defendant’s final trial date was not identified.
(c) judgment of the immediate deliberation;