근로기준법위반등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact misunderstanding: The Defendant paid the amount of money under the pretext of overtime allowances to workers F, regardless of whether he actually worked for an extension, which constitutes wages under the Minimum Wage Act.
The court below, however, found that F was paid wages below the minimum wage due to reasons other than those in the name of the above extension allowances when calculating F's wages.
Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (three million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. Whether the paid wage falls short of the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act or Article 6(4) of the Minimum Wage Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act [Attachment 1] of the same Act shall be determined by comparing the amount of the wage and the minimum amount of the wage with the amount of the wage excluding the wages or allowances (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da64245 Decided January 11, 2007). (B) According to the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant’s employees, including F, provided labor for four or six hours during a Saturday in addition to the hours of the work from a Saturday to a Saturday, and the fact that F received an extension allowance in proportion to such hours can be recognized.
In light of the fact that the “over-time allowance” recorded in the wage ledger prepared by the Defendant appears to be the “over-time allowance” wage for the “over-day work” as a holiday except Saturdays, the legal nature of the extension allowance received by F is deemed to be the wage for the holiday work under Article 2 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Minimum Wage Act, so it cannot be included in the minimum wage.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.
3. In the case of a violation of the Labor Standards Act on the Determination of Illegal Claims for Sentencing, it appears that the unexpected aggravation of management would have caused the crime, and the original judgment has already been made.