logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.03.09 2016고단3010
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The defendant in the factory laboratory is the representative director of (ju) D in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who runs the leisure event business as the representative director.

(a) An employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall, if a worker retires, pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred;

Nevertheless, the Defendant worked in the above workplace from April 12, 2012 to June 25, 2016, and did not pay the total of KRW 6,755,380 of the wages of retired workers E within 14 days from the date of retirement, as shown in the attached crime list, and did not pay the total of KRW 22,671,188 of the wages of all four workers within 14 days from the date of retirement, as shown in the attached crime list.

(b) An employer who violates the Act on Guarantee of Retirement Benefits of a worker shall pay a retirement allowance within fourteen days after the ground for such payment occurred, in case where the worker retires; and

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 13,906,170 of the retirement allowance of the above employee E within 14 days from the date of his retirement, and did not pay KRW 51,539,080 in total for three employees as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

2. Each of the facts charged of the instant case is an offense falling under Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 44 subparag. 1 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

However, according to the statement in each of the written withdrawals submitted to this Court, it is apparent that the employee F, E, G, H, and I expressed his wish not to punish the defendant. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow