근로자퇴직급여보장법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
The defendant, as the representative of Seo-gu (Sgu)C located in Gwangju metropolitan area, is an employer who runs the chartered bus transport business with 45 full-time workers.
When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.
Provided, That the date of payment may be extended according to an agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.
Nevertheless, the Defendant worked from March 1, 1999 to March 1, 2018.
In the absence of an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment, part of the retirement allowances of retired D shall not be paid within 14 days from the date of retirement.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Statement made to D by the police;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the calculation of average wages and retirement allowances;
1. Article 44 of the relevant Act on criminal facts and Article 44 of the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for elective Workers, and Selection of fines;
1. Suspension of execution under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da12488, Apr. 2, 2007)
1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the Custody in the House of Labor and Labor (where a sentence of suspended execution is invalidated or revoked and the defendant does not pay the above fine, the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 into one day) of the defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion that the defendant and his defense counsel did not pay some retirement allowances as stated in the facts constituting a crime committed by the defendant and his defense counsel, although the defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged the fact that they did not pay retirement allowances to the worker D, there is a ground for dispute as to whether the defendant