근로기준법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act. Even if a domestic after-school teacher is an employee under the Labor Standards Act, he does not constitute a worker whose continuous work period is not less than one year, who is eligible for retirement allowances.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that after-school teachers are workers with more than one year of continuous employment, who are eligible for retirement allowance under the Labor Standards Act. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Although the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, and rejected the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the “decision on the Defendant’s
Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough manner with the records, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the defendant. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
B. The Defendant failed to pay the wages of KRW 9,247,509 in total to four workers on the assertion of unfair sentencing.
However, as the defendant paid each retirement allowance to G, I, H, and J which is a worker in the trial, the above worker has withdrawn his/her intent to punish the defendant, and the defendant constitutes a worker who is entitled to a retirement allowance for the worker.