근로기준법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal C is as of February 20, 2014;
2.24.2
2.25. 25.
3.4.
3.5.
3. Since the defendant does not go to work site on each of the pertinent days until the 18.2 p.m. or did not go to work site on each of the pertinent days, he does not have a duty to pay C KRW 450,000 for each of the pertinent days.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the judgment of the lower court are as follows: “Defendant is an employer who engages in construction business with one full-time employee as an individual constructor. The Defendant did not pay KRW 450,000 on March 22, 2014 to C, who worked from January 22, 2014 to March 18, 2014 without any agreement on extension of the payment deadline between the parties.” As to this, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case on the basis of the Defendant’s partial statement in court, C’s legal statement, job offer advertisement, calendar record, etc.
B. On March 18, 2014, part of the facts charged in the instant case, excluding the portion of the charge that C provided labor until March 2, 2014 (1) 1 February 20, 2014
2. 24.3
2. 25.4
3.4.5
3.5. The judgment of the court below on the unpaid wage of KRW 400,000 is not acceptable.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant asserted that C provided labor on February 20, 2014, when he/she was employed in the monthly amount of KRW 80,00,000 per day, and on the daily work day of the calendar wear and the cooperation company prepared by the Defendant.
2. 24.3
2. 25.4
3.4.5
3. 5. On May, it can be recognized that C does not work at work or after having worked at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work at work. According to this, C cannot be viewed as having the right to claim wages against the Defendant unless it provides labor at work at work at work.