beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.23 2014고정3575

근로기준법위반등

Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the representative director of C in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who ordinarily employs four workers and operates a personal service business. A.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from February 1, 2013 to March 10, 2014 at the above workplace.

A retired worker D's total amount of 3,306,450 won, such as wages of 2.5 million won in February 2014, and wages of 806,450 won in March, 201, did not pay 3,306,450 won within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension

(b) An employer who violates the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall, in case where a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred; and

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working from February 1, 2013 to March 10, 2014 at the above workplace.

2,760,270 won of retirement allowances of retired workers D were not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. We examine the judgment. Each of the above facts charged is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act. Under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, a public prosecution cannot be instituted against the victim’s express intent under the proviso of Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. According to the “written application for non-prosecution of punishment,” which is bound in the public trial records of this case, it is recognized that the employee D withdraws his/her wish to punish the Defendant on October 8, 2