근로기준법위반등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Of the facts charged by the lower court No. 2018 Highest 502, the lower court dismissed the judgment on the following facts: (a) Of the charges, the part against the employees listed in [Attachment Table 1] through 14, 17 through 20, the part against the employees listed in [Attachment Table 1] to the lower judgment; (b) the entire facts charged No. 2018 Highest 1503 and 2018 Highest 1709; and (c) the violation of the respective Labor Standards Act and the violation of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act against the employees listed in [Attachment Table 3] No. 2019 Highest 217.
Since the defendant appealed only for the guilty part, and the part of the dismissal of the above dismissal of the public prosecution is separated or finalized, the above dismissal of the public prosecution shall be excluded from the scope of
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since a misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) operated by the Defendant aggravated profits due to external causes, such as a decline in oil prices, the payment of the transaction company, etc., it was caused to the instant case. This constitutes an inevitable circumstance in which the payment of wages and retirement allowances is impossible, and thus,
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.
3. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. Determination of misconception of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. (1) An employer may be exempted from liability only where an inevitable circumstance, which was unable to be paid within the due date due to financial difficulties caused by management failure, is recognized in light of social norms. Thus, an employer cannot be exempted from liability solely on the ground that he/she was unable to receive pressure due to financial difficulties, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do649, Nov. 26, 2002).