근로기준법위반등
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.
Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.
Punishment of the crime
From November 1, 2009, the Defendant is a representative of the “E Elderly Welfare Center” located in Dong in literature-si, and is an employer who engages in welfare service business using 40 full-time workers.
When a worker retires, an employer shall pay the wages, retirement allowances, compensation, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,108,636 of F's retirement allowances working at the E Elderly Welfare Center from September 14, 2010 to March 30, 2013 within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without agreement between the parties on the date of payment.
Summary of Evidence
1. A witness F’s legal statement (a statement that he/she worked from September 14, 2010 to March 30, 2013, but failed to receive retirement allowances);
1. The authentic representative statement of G;
1. Details and statement of calculation of retirement allowances (which remain unpaid retirement benefits even if the amount already paid is excluded from investigation records, interim settlement, etc.);
1. Details of payment of retirement allowances, etc. (a written application for interim settlement of the payment of F's retirement allowances from September 201, 201 to August 201, 201 of investigation records, and receipts);
1. Documentary evidence of retirement allowance (the investigative record No. 370 pages, from September 201 to August 2012, 201) (the defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the defendant and the defense counsel did not violate the duty to pay retirement allowance since they received interim settlement of retirement allowance at the worker’s request, and that they did not intentionally commit a violation of the duty to pay retirement allowance. However, according to the evidence above, it is recognized that the defendant did not pay retirement allowance to the F despite the remainder of retirement allowance, and there is no ground to dispute as to the existence of the duty to pay retirement allowance. Thus, the defendant's intent to violate the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits due to the unpaid retirement allowance is also recognized).