logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.25 2016노2666
근로기준법위반등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant stated the original mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as grounds for appeal, and withdrawn such assertion on the fourth trial date.

(F) The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Even if a decision on preservative measure and decision on the commencement of rehabilitation procedure was rendered in accordance with the Defendant’s application for rehabilitation, the Defendant’s right to pay wages cannot be deemed lost, and thus, the Defendant’s right to pay wages is obligated to pay wages to workers D. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on this part. 2) The lower court’s sentence of

2. The lower court dismissed the public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Act on Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced to two years of imprisonment as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act with respect to D, not guilty, each fraud, and embezzlement.

The defendant filed an appeal as to the convicted part of the judgment below, and the prosecutor appealed as to the convicted part and the innocent part of the judgment below, and the dismissal part of the public prosecution was not dismissed.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below dismissed was separated and confirmed as it is and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

3. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is that the Defendant, as the representative of G Hospital F located in the G Hospital in Young-si District, is running a health business with 45 regular

From August 13, 2013 to workers D who work in the above hospital as an internal doctor, while wages are paid at least once a month on a fixed date, the Defendant’s wages are paid at KRW 2,00,000 among the wages for June 2014, and the wages for KRW 11,320,000 among the wages for July 2014; and

arrow