근로기준법위반등
1. The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months;
3. Of the facts charged in the instant case
1. The court below dismissed the public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that each worker in the attached list Nos. 2, 3, 4, and attached list Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 2, 3, 7, 8, and 15 expressed his/her intention not to punish the defendant after instituting the prosecution of this case, and convicted him/her of the remainder of the charges except this.
However, since only the Defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment below, the dismissed portion of the indictment was separately determined as it is.
Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court against the judgment below is limited to the conviction except the dismissed part of the above indictment.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s determination that the Defendant agreed with E prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and thus, the prosecution against this part of the facts charged ought to be dismissed.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant
A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the charges is as follows: (a) the Defendant, from around June 1, 2013, operates a business entity with no trade name for steel production with four full-time workers employed by D companies under contract for steel production from D companies; and (b) the Defendant, from around June 1, 2013, operated the said business entity
7. From June 6, 2013 to June 30, 201, a worker E who retired while serving in the above workplace and retired from the said workplace did not pay KRW 3,770,000 as wages and KRW 3,380,000 as wages of July 7, 2013 within 14 days from the date on which the cause for the occurrence of the payment occurred, without agreement on the extension of the payment deadline.
B. This part of the facts charged is the crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and is the employee E in accordance with Article 109(2) of the same Act.