근로기준법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. From April 2012, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not pay holiday allowances from May 2, 2012 to December 2012, 2012, even though the Defendant determined a Si rate of KRW 9,000 reflecting weekly holiday allowances through worker D and wage renegotiations, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B) The lower court’s judgment that determined that the Defendant did not pay a retirement allowance to D inasmuch as he/she did not have an obligation to pay a retirement allowance to D with four regular employees, was erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which determined that the Defendant did not pay wages to E even when he/she paid a worker E with January 2013, 201, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the fact that the Defendant paid part of the wages in arrears in the trial of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (fine 2.5 million won) is too heavy.
2. Determination:
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, we examine the argument that the weekly holiday allowance was paid with wage increase first.
The weekly holiday allowances under Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act are wages to be paid as allowances for paid holidays to workers who have completed their normal daily work, and the fact that the weekly holiday allowances have been increased as alleged by the Defendant cannot be deemed exempted from the obligation to pay weekly holiday allowances. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in this part is without merit.
B. Next, we examine the argument that the duty to pay retirement allowances to workers D does not occur.
According to the records, the defendant employed not less than four full-time workers while operating C Co., Ltd.