logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2015.02.05 2014고정345
근로기준법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of the Co., Ltd. C in Asan City and is an employer who runs a construction business using three full-time workers.

The Defendant, while performing construction of reinforced concrete with a subcontract at the site of a golf course building construction work in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, is working as steel bars from November 30, 2013 to February 13, 2014.

The retired FF’s total wages of KRW 20,830,000, including KRW 1,615,000 on January 201, 201, and KRW 2,890,00 on February 2, 2014, including KRW 1,275,000 on wages, and KRW 20,830,00 on the date of retirement, as shown in the attached crime list, did not pay KRW 20,830,00 on the total wages of seven retired workers within 14 days from the date of

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the F’s written statements, G and H respective Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act and 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. The sum of wages that a defendant was unable to pay for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is the maximum amount of KRW 20,830,00,000, and the two previous crimes have been punished for the same kind of crime, and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of the instant case shall be comprehensively considered in determining the same sentence

(A) The Defendant’s workplace is recognized as having received a substitute payment, but there is no evidence to prove that the substitute payment was made to the victims of the instant case, and even if the substitute payment was made, it cannot be deemed as having been repaid by the Defendant).

arrow