2016 Highest 4937 Violation of the Labor Standards Act

1. A, Company Board;

Residence

Reference domicile

2. B, Company Board

Residence

Reference domicile

Kim Jong-tae (Court Prosecution), Kim Sung-tae, and Manyeong (Court Decision)

Law Firm Jeong-ju, Attorneys Lee Dong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Iron (agress for Defendant A)

Attorney Kim Sung-soo (private election for Defendant B)

September 29, 2016

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months, and by imprisonment for a period of six months.

30,000,000 won from Defendant A, and 49,000,00 won from Defendant B shall be collected respectively.

To order the Defendants to pay the amount equivalent to each of the above additional charges.

Facts of crime

Defendant A entered in the old Daewoo Motor Co., Ltd. (the present Korean branch MM Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as the "Korean branch MM") in around 1985 and currently works as an employee belonging to the executive branch of the Korean branch of the GM branch, who serves as the president of the Democratic Site (one person referred to as the "Korean branch") of the Korean branch of the NM branch and serves as the president of the Democratic Site (one person) in the nine Korean branch of the NM branch.

Defendant B, who entered the Korea Branch M in around 1983 and currently worked as a staff member of the Korea MM Bupyeong Factory Logistics Operation Team, was reappointed for 23 years from around 1994.

1. Defendant A

The defendant was employed once a year on the basis of document screening, personal character test, interview, and physical examination from among the workers who have worked in the first cooperation (contract) company of Korea M in the first cooperation (contract). The defendant was willing to receive money in the name of employment for job applicants by going through Korea MM labor-management and labor-management and labor-management relations.

On January 2015, the Defendant would turn on the ○○○○, the mother of ○○○, working in ○○○○○, a primary contractor of Korea-M, when employed as a full-time employee in 2015 Korea-MM production. “The Defendant demanded KRW 40 million in consideration of the demand for the employment of KRW 40 million from February 24, 2015 to March 2, 2015, and received KRW 40 million from the Kim○, a total of KRW 40 million from February 24, 2015 to March 2, 2015.

On September 2015, 2015, the Defendant went away from the NA-type regular examination, and in other words, Kim Kim ○ would pass and pass the regular examination for the first half of the year" to ○○. Since then around March 2016, Kim ○ again around 2016, the Defendant was insufficient to bring about KRW 10 million as the amount of KRW 40 million for the first half of the year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’s year’

From July 2013 to April 12, 2016, the Defendant received a total of KRW 330,000,000,000 from July 2, 2013 to April 12, 2016, and participated in the employment of others for profit, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

2. Defendant B

The Defendant: (a) among workers who have worked for at least one year in the Korean branch M 1 cooperation (contract), was engaged in the employment of production workers (regular workers) one time a year annually through document screening, personal character test, interview, physical examination, and physical examination; (b) so, the Defendant did not only engage in competition to work for the primary subcontractor, but also in the process of hiring and hiring the full-time employees of Korea MM as full-time employees, and did not receive money as a non-employment example by requesting the job applicants to recommend the employees in charge of the Korea MM labor-management sector or those related to the labor union or the full-time employees of Korean MM to be employed by the primary cooperation company or by soliciting them to be employed as a full-time employees in the Korean branch.

A. Acceptance of money and valuables from a person entrusted with employment Kim Il-young

1) On May 2012, the Defendant requested ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, located in the Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, to get employed by the primary contractor, which is the condition that she would be allowed to enter the Korean branch M, from the same father’s line, of the same father’s workplace, from the Kim Jong-dong’s line. After accepting the request, the Defendant consented to the employment of the regular manager of the Human Resources Management Team in the Korea MM labor-management division, and then changed in a way that she would be employed by the contractor if she would have been given an opportunity to be employed. On the request of her, the Defendant was employed from the above ○○○○○○○, a Korean contractor, on May 24, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the above Kim Jong-dong Kim Jong-dong, the Defendant was employed from the above 1st 5th 5th son Kim, a Korean contractor.

2 ) 피고인은 2015 . 9 . 7 . 경 인천 부평구 갈산동에 있는 부평구청 인근에 있는 ' ③ ◎ 장어구이 ' 식당에서 위 김●●으로부터 아들 김◎◎을 한국지엠 정규직으로 채용될 수 있도록 해 달라는 청탁을 받고 이를 승낙한 후 그 자리에서 현금 4 , 000만 원을 교 부받았다 . 그 후 피고인은 한국지엠 노사부문 노사협력팀 상무 고◎◎에게 위 김◎◎ 의 정규직 취업을 청탁하여 , 위 김◎◎이 2015 . 9 . 24 . 정규직으로 취업할 수 있도록 해 주었다 .

Accordingly, the Defendant involved in the employment of another person for profit as above.

(b) Acceptance of money and valuables from the employee’s guardian, and knives.

Defendant, around August 2014, 2014, Manhee, who is an employee of the same Korea GM, worked in the South East East East Eastern Corporation, and I want to be employed in the Korean GM contracting company. On the opportunity, I want to find low-income frauds and take personnel when employed. On the opportunity, I agreed to do so. After having received the request, I went through the interview, I would like to be able to find an employee at the KMM's office. The Defendant was employed at the GMM 1, the GM 4, which was issued to the GM 4, in return for the employment of the GM 1, the GM 4, the GM 4, the GM 1, the GM 4, the GM 4, the Defendant was employed at the GM 1, the GM 4, the GM 1, the GM 4, the GM 4, the GM 1, the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant involved in the employment of another person for profit as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1 . 김◆◆ , 최◆◆ , 차◆◆ , 이◆◆ , 김○○ , 김□□ , 김●● , 정○○에 대한 각 검찰 피

Voluntary Examination Record

1. Statement of prosecutor's office concerning diversity;

1 . 박□□ , 정□□ , 김■■의 각 진술서

1. Investigation report (related to the employment visa of the Korean branchM as a regular worker, Kim W, and the investigation report (Korean branchM as a regular worker) and investigation report (Korean branchM as a regular worker);

취업자 김◎◎ 서류전형 통과 특이점 보고 ) , 수사보고 ( 이◆◆ 휴대전화에 저장된 김

태환의 취업청탁 관련 문자메시지 내역 ) , 수사보고 ( 김□□ - 최◆◆ - A 문자내액 확

(A) An investigation report (a file of account transaction details of a suspect A with respect to employment mediation) and a criminal investigation report (A)

documents submitted by the Committee), investigation report (verification of payment records, etc. of Kim Hybal Card, etc. - Payment on the date of giving money or other valuables

Time-related)

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

○ Defendants: Articles 107 and 9 (Appointment of Imprisonment) of the Labor Standards Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

○ Defendants: Article 5(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation and Restoration of Corruption Property

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

Type 1 (Intermediate Taking of Forced Labor, etc.) Basic area (from June to one year)

【Special Convicted Persons】

None

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: 6 months to 10 months

2. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant A

The Labor Standards Act provides for the standards of working conditions so as to guarantee and improve the basic livelihood of workers and prevent profits from obtaining profits under the pretext of referral fees, etc. In order to promote the balanced development of the national economy, Article 9 of the same Act provides for the "Intermediate exploitation". The Defendant received money on several occasions in the course of participating in the employment of another person. This act of the Defendant is ultimately a violation of the provision excluding interim exploitation, thereby undermining sound labor order. In light of the fact that the amount the Defendant received is reasonable, and that the Defendant repeatedly committed a crime for a considerable period of time, the nature of the crime is extremely strict punishment. However, in determining the punishment, the fact that the Defendant was the first offender and returned a considerable portion of the amount received as a request for employment, and that the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and behavior, environment, circumstances leading to the instant crime, and all the circumstances leading to the crime before and after the commission of the crime shall be determined in full view of all the following circumstances.

2. Defendant B

The Labor Standards Act provides for the standards of working conditions so as to guarantee and improve the basic livelihood of workers and to ensure the balanced development of the national economy, thereby preventing any person from taking advantage of his/her job as a referral fee, etc. As such, Article 9 of the Labor Standards Act provides for the exclusion of intermediate exploitation. The Defendant received money several times in the course of participating in the employment of another person. The Defendant was ultimately subject to the exclusion of interim exploitation, thereby ultimately impairing sound labor order, and the nature of the crime is inevitable: (a) there is no record of punishment exceeding fines imposed on the Defendant in determining the punishment; (b) there is no record of punishment imposed on the Defendant; (c) there is no record of actively demanding this money; and (d) there is no record of the Defendant’s age, job, character and conduct, environment, the circumstances and motive leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc.

In full view of all the conditions of the sentencing shown, the same sentence as the order shall be determined.

Judge Iseather