beta
인천지방법원 2018.02.01 2017고정2604

직업안정법위반

Text

Defendants are innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A was elected as the president of the cooperative on February 12, 2014 and is the president of the credit cooperative in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of acting as the agent of a financial institution.

No person who conducts a job placement business, recruitment of workers, or labor supply business, or a person engaged in such business, shall place a false job offer advertisement, or suggest false job offer conditions.

A. On February 24, 2017, Defendant A entered “in the form of employment” column in “work contract without a fixed period”, “wages” column, and “non-existent” in the “employment advertisement,” and conducted a false job offer advertisement by stating that E (25 years of age, female) applied for a job offer advertisement. Unlike the above job offer advertisement, Defendant A decided to convert the term of contract into a regular one year, and the wage was paid to KRW 1450,000 per month.

B. Although Defendant B, a representative, should not advertise false job offer, Defendant B’s credit cooperative Defendant neglected his/her duties to ensure that A is engaged in false job offer advertisements as described in the above A.

2. Defendant A’s assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel did not know the specific contents at the time when the job offer advertisement recorded in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant job offer advertisement”) was carried out on “the Worknet,” and thereafter, Defendant A filed a civil petition that the labor conditions indicated in the instant job offer advertisement differ from the actual working conditions, and then came to know late.

Therefore, since there is no fact that Defendant A participated in the preparation of the job offer advertisement of this case, it is unfair to assume the responsibility for false advertisements, and the prosecution against Defendant B credit cooperatives premised on Defendant A’s above responsibility is also improper.

3. The charged facts of this case are determined.