근로기준법위반등
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. The facts charged of the instant case [2016 high-level 913] The Defendant is a representative of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building C (L) pursuant to Article 903, who employs five full-time workers and operates software program development business.
The defendant worked in the above workplace from December 8, 2014 to June 26, 2015 and did not pay the total of KRW 2,340,290 in June 2015, and other allowances, such as food expenses, 358,200 in June 2015, and KRW 2,724,430 in annual settlement refund at the end of 2014, and KRW 2,724,430 in annual settlement refund at the end of 2014, and KRW 2,711,10 in June 22, 2015 to June 29, 2015, and retired E's retirement from office did not pay the total of KRW 250,300 in June 20, 2014, KRW 308,020 in annual settlement refund at the end of 208,306, 4309, and KRW 4379,537 in each party's agreement.
[2016 High 914] Defendant was on the F, 20th floor in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
As a representative of C(L), five full-time workers were employed to operate software development business, and currently, as the representative of G Co., Ltd. located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building 903, four full-time workers are employers who run the ground operation service business.
Defendant did not pay 10,485,634 won in total, including retirement allowance 6,178,981 won, annual settlement refund 89,980 won, annual settlement refund 89,980 won, and money and valuables 3,406,673 won in G Co., Ltd., for August 2015, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment date, in which case the Defendant worked and retired from the said workplace from November 27, 2013 to August 25, 2015.
- The operating period of C(oil) business: From September 4, 2013 to June 30, 2015 - The operating period of G Co., Ltd.’s business establishment: From July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015 - Retirement pay as of November 27, 2013 to June 30, 2015
2. Determination
(a) Crimes of non-violation of intention: Article 109 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act;
B. After the prosecution of this case, the workers expressed their intention not to punish the defendant.
(c) Judgment dismissing public prosecution: