logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.30 2017고정2364
근로기준법위반등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, who runs the marriage brokerage business using 30 full-time workers.

From September 1, 2012, the Defendant did not pay KRW 10,038,358,358 in total, including 315,788,788, and retirement allowances and retirement allowances, 8,622, and 143,540, and 315,788,78,358, and 358,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial testimony of witness G;

1. Statement made by the witness F in the second public trial record;

1. Statement made by each police officer against F and H, and statement made by the police officer against F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of arrears, details of deposits into the wage account, receipts of source collection of business income, teams listed in the Schedule E of Standard for Payment, and copies of the total remuneration during the period of service

1. Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act for the relevant Act on criminal facts, and subparagraphs 1 and 9 of Article 33 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (including the payment of unpaid wages);

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of an alternative fine;

4. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.

5. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order Act asserts that the defendant did not have an obligation to pay wages, etc. to F, since he had no labor relationship between the defendant and F.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, ① the working day, the day of work, the year, the month, the month, the working hours, etc. were set to the company’s “kacker” such as F, etc., (i) the said company’s F, etc.).

arrow