근로기준법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: ① The defendant did not accurately observe the specific time hours agreed upon in the labor contract concluded with a private person E for medical care protection (hereinafter “the labor contract of this case”), and the hours of recess of three hours as a whole guaranteed a day was sufficiently limited to E; ② In the case of E, the part of the requirements for calculating working hours cannot be specified in light of the medical care protection company’s form of work and the nature of work, etc.; and in such a case, the comprehensive wage agreement of this case under the labor contract of this case (hereinafter “the comprehensive wage agreement of this case”) cannot be deemed null and void, including the case where it is deemed difficult to calculate working hours. Ultimately, the defendant did not have extended allowances, annual allowances, and retirement allowances, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The crime of violating the duty to liquidate money and goods under Articles 112(1) and 36 of the former Labor Standards Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007) is established when an employee does not pay wages, compensations, and other money and goods within 14 days from the time when the cause for payment occurred due to the employee’s death or retirement. Thus, the name of the employee’s unpaid money and goods differs.
Even if a single crime is established for each worker to receive such payment, and it does not constitute a separate crime according to the name of money or other valuables (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5794, Sept. 11, 2008). Meanwhile, in light of the above legal principles, a crime of violation of Article 44 subparag. 1, 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act and Article 109 subparag. 1, and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act due to the difference between the minimum wage and the non-payment of the minimum wage, the crime of violation of Article 109 subparag. 1, and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act shall be deemed as an ordinary concurrent crime under Article 40 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1324, Apr. 25, 2013).