Defendant

1. The guilty portion of the judgment below A shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (for the accused, the sentencing of each of the charges of KRW 7 million);

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination: To examine ex officio prior to the determination on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants who violated the principle of law at the time of action.

The lower court, on all the facts charged against the Defendants in violation of the Labor Standards Act, deemed that the statutory penalty under Article 109(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 16270, Jan. 15, 2019) is “a imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding thirty million won.”

Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall pay wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days from the time when the cause for the payment thereof occurred when a worker dies or retires. A violation of Article 109 of the Labor Standards Act due to delayed payment of wages, etc. is established at the expiration of 14 days from the date when the cause for the payment thereof occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1477, Nov. 10, 1995). The establishment and punishment of a crime is in principle governed by the Act at the time of the act (see, e.g., Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act). Since the retirement date of the employee F retired on August 18, 2017, the facts charged of the violation of the Labor Standards Act against the Defendants should be governed by the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017) or by a fine not exceeding KRW 300,000.

However, the court below applied the new law that was more severe punishment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is a violation of the law.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

B. Whether the sentencing is excessive (affirmative) Furthermore, we examine the Defendants’ argument about the sentencing in excess of the sentencing.

The sum of the wages and retirement allowances that the Defendants paid to F is expected to have suffered considerable economic suffering, and the damage is recovered until now.