logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2015.02.26 2014고정479
근로기준법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a representative director of I Co., Ltd. H in mining and operating a construction business with ten full-time workers.

The defendant shall work from March 13, 2013 to December 31, 2013.

A retired worker J did not pay 10,880,000 won of wages from September 2013 to December 2013, 2013, and did not pay 20,8880,000 won of wages of two workers within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date, as set out in attached Table 1 and 2.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of J and K in their respective simplified statements;

1. Relevant Articles of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the same Act concerning 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 dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative director of I Co., Ltd. I in Gwangjuyang, runs a construction business with ten full-time workers.

The defendant shall work from March 15, 2013 to September 30, 2013.

As stated in [Attachment B] No. 3-8 of wages of 200,000 won on September 2013, 2013, workers who retired were not paid KRW 7,150,000 for the total wages of 6 workers was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the date.

2. Each of the facts charged in this part of the judgment is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act.

According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the victims expressed their intent not to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case. Thus, this part of the prosecution is instituted in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow