beta
Text
All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, as the C representative director of the Co., Ltd. in the Co., Ltd. in the facts charged, is an employer who ordinarily employs 40 workers and conducts a manufacturing business.
From December 8, 2008 to March 26, 2016, the Defendant appears to be a clerical error in the above workplace.
D’s total wage of KRW 10,278,538,530 in December 2014, and KRW 2,186,80 in January 2015, and KRW 5,708 in March 2017, including the wage of KRW 5,708,208 in March 2017, did not pay KRW 10,278,538 within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties.
B. The Defendant is as from December 8, 2008 to March 26, 2016 at the above workplace.
G retirement allowances of D, which served for the period from October 24, 208 to March 31, 2017, paid 31,139,064 won of E retirement allowances of D, which served for the period from March 6, 2009 to June 20, 2017, and paid 21,527,271 won of F retirement allowances of D, who served for the period from March 6, 2009 to February 20, 2017, and paid 9,904,99 won totaling 101,076,732 won within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment period.
2. Of the facts charged in determining whether wages are unpaid is an offense falling under Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Article 44 Subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.
According to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, each of the above offenses may not be prosecuted against the victim's explicit intent or against the victim's explicit intent.
However, on January 30, 2019, after the institution of the instant prosecution, the victimized workers expressed their intent not to be punished against the Defendant through a written application for non-prosecution of punishment submitted to this court.
Therefore, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.