근로기준법위반
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the actual operator of the “C” in the G in the period of harmony, was engaged in the manufacturing industry by using three regular workers.
The Defendant provided labor at the business place of the relevant company from January 6, 2014 to October 31, 2014 without an agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties, and did not pay 11,50,000 won (=2,300,000 won per month x five months) as wages from May 6, 2014 to September of the date of retirement.
2. We examine the judgment, and the above facts charged are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act.
However, on July 8, 2015, after the prosecution of this case, the employee D expressed his/her intention not to punish in this court through the defendant, so the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.