beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is an employer who is engaged in a vessel processing business with 80 full-time employees under the trade name of Section C (State) located in Section B at the time of the charge.
When an employee who violates the Labor Standards Act dies or retires, the Defendant is working as the head of the Ban from July 1, 2014 to April 17, 2016, even though he/she is paid wages, compensations, and other money and valuables within 14 days from the time when the cause for such payment occurred.
A retired worker E’s wage of KRW 1,328,752, monthly wage of KRW 4,065,059, monthly wage of March 2016, and KRW 2,805,376, monthly wage of KRW 888,336,042, including KRW 88,00,000, monthly wage of KRW 2,805,376, monthly wage of April 2016, did not pay KRW 49,336,042 within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties.
B. An employer violating the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act has been employed as the head of a Ban from July 1, 2014 to April 17, 2016, even though the employee has been paid retirement allowances within 14 days from the time when the ground for such payment occurred when the employee retired.
The retirement allowance of retired workers E, including KRW 5,225,783, No. 1-7,9-13, 15-17, 19, 21-23, 26-30, 32-39, 42-39, 42-4-51, 54, 57-6, 69-82, 84-86, 86, 888, and KRW 249,365,821, which was the aggregate of 70 retirement allowances of retired workers, was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on the extension of the payment date between the parties.
2. Determination
(a) Applicable provisions of Acts: Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 (1) and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act;
(b) Crimes of non-performance of will: Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.
(c) Declaration of non-existence of punishment: The withdrawal of a complaint filed on October 4, 2016 and October 7, 2012, which was after the institution of this case was indicted;
(d) Judgment dismissing public prosecution: It is so decided as per Disposition for the reasons under Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.