근로기준법위반
Of the judgment of the court below, the part of acquittal on the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to unpaid vehicle maintenance costs is excluded.
1. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the unpaid costs of maintaining vehicles among the facts charged in the instant case.
However, it should be viewed that the prosecutor's appeal on the part of the above innocence was exempted from the object of public defense among the parties.
Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is followed with respect to the non-guilty part of the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the unpaid vehicle maintenance cost, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below and the non-guilty part
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On January 22, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition prohibiting the Defendant from attending work on January 22, 2013 should be deemed dismissal.
In the event of immediate dismissal of workers, the advance notice of dismissal allowance shall be paid at the same time as the dismissal or at least on the date of the first arrival after the dismissal, and since the amount that the Defendant paid to E on March 11, 2013 and April 17, 2013 paid to E on the above time limit, it cannot be deemed that the advance notice of dismissal allowance was paid properly.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the amount of KRW 300,000 of a fine) is too unjustifiable and unfair.
3. The lower court determined that among the facts charged in the instant case, the facts charged in the instant indictment are stated as “the Defendant, January 21, 2013.” However, the date indicated in the notice of the prohibition of attendance (Evidence No. 77 pages) issued by the Defendant to E while notifying E of the prohibition of attendance is January 21, 2013. According to the E’s legal statement, E attempted to work in the company on January 21, 2013, a monthly Saturday, and it was recognized that E was sent to the company on January 21, 2013, and the notice of the prohibition of attendance was received without entering the company. Thus, this appears to be an obvious clerical error in the “1 January 21, 2013.”
E 'victims'
the amount equivalent to 30 days’ ordinary wages without giving notice of dismissal for 30 days at the time of immediate dismissal 2,300.