beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.02.22 2018고정215

근로기준법위반등

Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative C in both weeks, is a full-time worker who operates the original body using five full-time workers.

(a) When a worker dies or retires from office, 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, unless the parties have agreed on the extension of the due date for payment;

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 937,440 of the annual paid leave allowances of D (one person E) who worked from July 19, 2011 to November 15, 2015 at the said workplace, within 14 days from the date of retirement, although there was no agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

(b) An employer who violates the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for Workers shall, in cases where a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within 14 days from the date of such retirement, unless otherwise agreed on the extension of the payment period;

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,951,078 of the retirement pay balance of D (one person E) that he/she worked at the said workplace from July 19, 2011 to November 15, 2015, within 14 days from the date of his/her retirement, although there was no agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

2. We examine the judgment. The facts charged of this case are crimes falling under Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 44 subparag. 1 of the Workers' Retirement Benefit Security Act, and Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Workers' Retirement Benefit Security Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's clearly expressed intent under the proviso of Article 44 of the Workers' Retirement Benefit Security Act. According to the records, on December 21, 2017, which was after the institution of the instant prosecution, the fact that the employee D (one person E) expressed his wish not to punish the defendant. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.