근로기준법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: Inasmuch as an employee of the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles makes an oral application for overtime allowance not only by the time-off allowance document, there is no obligation to pay it, and a regular bonus is delayed while paying it in line with the payment date, and the full amount of wages is
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of ex officio determination.
In light of the records of this case, the facts charged of this case merely state that the employer, the employer, did not directly pay overtime allowances in the currency for January 2012 and the regular bonus for February 2012, 2012, and the applicable provisions of this case stated that "Articles 109 (1) and 43 of the Labor Standards Act" shall be stated as "Article 109 (1) and Article 43 of the Labor Standards Act," and the court below found all of the facts charged of this case guilty in accordance with these facts charged and applicable provisions of this case, and rendered a decision of suspending sentence against the defendant by stating Articles 109 (1) and 43 of the Labor Standards Act as applicable provisions for criminal facts.
However, among the facts charged in the instant case, where the employer has not paid the total amount of wages that should be paid on a certain date at least once a month, among the unpaid part of January 2012, Article 109(1) and Article 43(1) and (2) of the Labor Standards Act are all applicable, but only one crime is established.
In addition, even if Article 43(2) of the same Act, which is based on the premise that the regular bonus is regularly and regularly paid every two months at least once a month, cannot be immediately applied, if the employer did not pay the full amount at the due date in light of the legislative purport of the above provision to promote the stability of workers’ livelihood, then Articles 109(1) and 43(1) of the same Act.