logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.07 2015고정1645
근로기준법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 5, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to forge a private document at the Suwon District Court on May 1, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 1, 2015.

The defendant, as the representative director of the D Co., Ltd. in Suwon-si, Suwon-si C and 905, operated the machinery and equipment business by using five regular workers.

The Defendant did not pay the total amount of KRW 2,30,00 for September 1, 2014, which was worked in the same workplace from September 1, 2014 to November 15, 2014; KRW 2,300,000 for wage; KRW 1,150,00 for wage on November 201, 2014; KRW 5,750,000 for wage; ② From June 30, 2014 to October 15, 2014; KRW 2,50,000 for wage; KRW 2,50,000 for workers from September 20 to September 20, 2014; KRW 50,000 for wage on September 2, 20,000 for each party’s retirement; KRW 10,000 for wage on October 1, 204; and KRW 60,000 for each party’s retirement without agreement.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of E and F;

1. Previous records: Application of each copy of the judgment;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Although it is necessary to consider equity in the case of a judgment at the same time with the previous conviction on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, considering the fact that the previous conviction and the criminal facts of this case are completely different from those of the previous offense, the defendant re-offending the previous offense despite three times the previous convictions of the same kind of fine, in the case of workers E, and the worker F was unable to pay wages only once after entry. In light of the fact that the nature of the crime is poor, the punishment as set forth in the

arrow