beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2014.01.21 2013고단1313

근로기준법위반등

Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the C representative director in Pyeongtaek-si B, is a user who runs automobile parts manufacturing business using 25 full-time workers.

"2013 Highest 1313"

1. The Defendant violated the Labor Standards Act in the said workplace and worked in the said workplace from June 1, 2003 to April 19, 2013 and did not pay KRW 3,520,466 in total for workers D wages, other money, valuables, etc. of retired workers, from October 21, 191 to June 4, 2013 and paid KRW 6,585,630 in total, including wages, etc. of workers E, and other money, etc. of retired workers, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment date.

2. The Defendant violated the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits was serving on June 4, 2013 in the said workplace and served on June 4, 2013 in 24,764,921 won of retirement allowances of retired workers D, and served on June 4, 2013 from October 21, 1991 to June 4, 201, and did not pay KRW 74,339,045, respectively, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment deadline.

The defendant of "2013 Highest 1511" work in the above workplace from October 26, 2005 to August 10, 2013.

The retirement allowance of 17,817,220 won to the retired worker F was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes 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, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. Since the employee has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the Defendant after the institution of the instant case, the instant prosecution is all of the instant indictment in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.