beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2019.01.15 2017고단2060

근로기준법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who runs a construction business individually without a certain trade name and regular worker.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Provided, That the date of payment may be extended by an agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, from February 2, 2017 to February 13, 2017, the Defendant served as the sn beam installation hole in the site A of the main complex building site located in Busan High School located in Busan High-gu, where the Defendant worked as a provisional facility, and did not pay KRW 1,100,000,000 for the total wages of February 1, 2017 to C, from the said new site A during the period from February 14 to February 13, 2017, and from February 14, 2017 to March 15, 2017, the Defendant did not agree to pay KRW 1,340,000 for the employees D who were employed in the said new site B during the period from February 1, 2017, and paid KRW 200,000 for the total wages of March 260, 2017 to the employees D within the due date without agreement between the parties to the payment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of C and D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017); the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. According to Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a crime for which no wage is paid within 14 days from the retirement date of a worker on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order is highly likely to be subject to criticism as it impedes the livelihood and stable livelihood security of the worker. In particular, the economic situation of the ordinary workers who depend on monthly wage