logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.01.28 2013고정1808
근로기준법위반
Text

The sentence against the accused shall be 500,000 won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of the corporation N in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the 3,354,840 won monthly wage of January 1, 2013 and the 3,668,710 won for year-end settlement of accounts and 3,670 won for year-end settlement of accounts and 5,9,12,14, and 17 did not pay 10,674,01 won for five workers only from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of P, Q, R, S, and T;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act concerning criminal facts and Articles 109(1) and 36 of the same Act concerning the selection of fines

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

1. Articles 70 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 Defendant is the representative director of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu N, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 27,020,818,00 from the date of retirement to the expiration of 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties concerned regarding the extension of the payment date, as stated in the following: (a) January 20, 2012 to February 15, 2013; (b) February 15, 2013; (c) February 1 through 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16; and (d) February 14, 2013.

2. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the employee’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the same Act. Since the above employee expressed his/her wish not to punish the Defendant after the indictment of this case, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow