logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.07.21 2019노1704
근로기준법위반등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

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

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

(a) Of the facts charged against the accused, the lower court sentenced 1, 2, 6 through 9, 11, 12, 14 through 19, 21, 23, 24, 26 through 32, 35 through 46, 49 through 52, 54, 56 through 59, 61 through 66, 74 through 81, 83 through 92, 95 through 101, 103 through 112, 114 through 116, 118, 121, 3, 36 through 21, 36, 36 through 54, 15, 25 or 47, 15 or 47, 25 or 47 of the Labor Standards Act, 34 or 54, 15 or 54, 15 or 54 of the crime committed against the accused, respectively.

Therefore, since each rejection of prosecution without appeal is separated and confirmed as it is, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the guilty part against the defendant and the acquittal part of the judgment below.

B. Meanwhile, the court below rejected the application for compensation order B by the applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. The rejection part of the application for compensation order was immediately finalized.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the rejection of the above compensation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part concerning the violation of each Labor Standards Act) and the Act on Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits prevents the Defendant from paying wages and retirement allowances to its employees due to the embezzlement and breach of trust of Q, which is the former representative director of the bank in charge of the settlement of disputes, was seized, and the Defendant was appointed as the representative director of the bank in charge of the settlement of disputes and thereafter the company’s business normalization and normalization.

arrow