logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.09.13 2015고단3528
근로기준법위반등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant 1 is an employer who has operated D in the Gu of Ansan-si, the 2015 Highest 3528, Annsan-si.

When an employee retires, the employer shall pay him/her wages within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the Defendant worked at the said workplace from March 1, 2013 to April 30, 2014, and did not pay the total of KRW 14,512,960 in total for 13 months from March 1, 2013 to April 2014 of the retired workers E, and paid KRW 14,512,960 in total for 13 months from March 1, 2013 to April 2014 of the retired workers F, and did not pay KRW 14,512,960 in total for 13 months from April 2014; from March 1, 2013 to July 30, 2014 to July 1, 2013 to July 30, 2014; and paid KRW 10,000,000 in total for 10,000 won in total; and KRW 40,506 in total within 30,50 months in total.

On July 2013, 2013, the Defendant introduced the new construction site of J, which is a high-class loan in J, which is located in Tyang-si, Nam-si, the South-si, Tyang-si, to the victim H, and stated that “The auction will be conducted on October 8, 2013, but the construction will be awarded a successful bid in the form of a multiple contract, so that the construction will be commenced immediately. The construction cost in Korea deposited KRW 150 billion with the National Bank, but the deposit will be paid as security.”

However, the above construction site was suspended due to the lack of funds by the existing construction business operators, and the defendant did not have been awarded a bid for the above loan in the form of a multiple contract, and there was no fact that the defendant deposited the 150 billion won with the National Bank, and there was no intention or ability to contract the related construction to the victim.

Defendant 1, as seen above, had the victim believe, by acting as the victim would have been responsible for the subcontracted work, and had the victim believe it. On October 29, 2013, Defendant 1 was on the part of the victim.

arrow