logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.07.29 2014고정1159
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building No. 610, who is an employer who operates clothing manufacturing and wholesale and retail business using five regular workers.

① The Defendant had worked from October 1, 2009 to April 30, 2013 at the above workplace, including D’s wage of KRW 1,190,907 on October 1, 2012, wage of KRW 1,190,907 on November 1, 2012, and wage of KRW 33,245,694 on November 1, 2012, as indicated in the attached Form, was not paid respectively within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date. ② The Defendant did not pay the retirement allowance of KRW 16,570,831 on the total amount of three retired workers, including KRW 3,867,116 on the aforementioned worker D’s retirement allowance and KRW 16,570,831 on the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date.

2. The judgment above (1) The facts charged constitute a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the same Act. (2) The facts charged constitute a crime falling under Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent pursuant to the proviso to Article 44 of the same Act. According to the letter of withdrawal of each petition received on July 14, 2014 and the written agreement, it is recognized that D, E, and F withdrawn the victim’s declaration of intent to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case was instituted, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow