beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.08.28 2020고단2806

근로기준법위반등

Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as the representative of C Child Care Centers in B at B, is an employer who operates a child care center using seven full-time workers.

When a worker dies or retires, an employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Provided, That the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working in the child care center from March 1, 201 to February 28, 2020.

A total of 19,845,260 won was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date, as stated in the attached list of crimes, as well as wages of KRW 730,00 on February 20, 2020.

(b) An employer who violates the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall, in case where a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred; and

Provided, That the date of payment may be extended by an agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working in the child care center from March 1, 201 to February 28, 2020.

20,032,570 won of retirement allowances of retired workers D was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are those falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the express will of the victimized workers under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

However, the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes the fact that the employee D expressed his/her intention not to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case was instituted.