logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.10.30 2020노620
근로기준법위반등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the public prosecution as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act against workers as stated in the No. 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 20, 21, 24 through 27, 29, 45, 48 through 50, 56, 58, 58, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68 through 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 85, 87 through 90, 94, and 86, and the violation of the Workers' Retirement Benefits Security Act against workers who wish to be prosecuted, and convicted all of the remaining facts charged.

However, since the defendant and the prosecutor appealed only the guilty portion on the grounds of unfair sentencing as follows, the dismissal of the prosecution is separated and finalized, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction portion of the judgment below.

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal (a two-year and four months imprisonment) asserts that the original court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and that the prosecutor asserts that the original court’s punishment is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. Determination is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant did not pay 262,88,658 won in arrears to 62 workers; and (b) the number of employees who did not yet agreed to; (c) the amount of damage exceeds 32,000 won; and (d) the amount of damage exceeds 130,000 won (it is alleged that the Defendant has recovered a considerable portion of damage caused by substitute payment; (b) since substitute payment is paid to employees on behalf of the employer, it is difficult to view substitute payment as the Defendant’s direct recovery of damage; and (c) there is no evidence to support that the Defendant paid substitute payment, as substitute payment is paid to employees on behalf of the employer, it is difficult to view it as one of the general sentencing factors; and (d) the Defendant had received progress payment from C around April 2016 until the actual discontinuance of D’s operation.

arrow