근로기준법위반등
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that “The Defendant is a representative of Seo-gu building 104 Dong 213, Seo-gu, Gwangju, who has been engaged in construction business by ordinarily employing 10 workers.
From March 1, 2014 to March 15, 2016, the Defendant retired from employment at D sites, etc. on January 1, 2016, the Defendant failed to pay the total of KRW 3,069,010, and KRW 7,397,03,860, and KRW 6,70,70,740, and KRW 7,397,030, and KRW 6,700,740, and KRW 6,740, and KRW 740, and KRW 40,00, and KRW 3,674,00,00, and KRW 740,00, and KRW 40,00,000, KRW 10,674,00,000, KRW 16,565,765,765,740, etc. of the amount of wages on March 1, 2016.
“.....”
The above facts charged fall under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and the main text of Article 44(1) and 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, respectively, and thus, the defendant cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.
In doing so, “E and F” did not want to be punished by the Defendant was submitted to this court on March 3, 2017, which was after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 Subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.