In case where a person who provided human resources pays wages on behalf of a business operator, whether the business operator is exempted from liability for violation of the Labor Standards Act due to unpaid wages (negative)

Articles 36 and 112 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007) (see current Article 109)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006No2608 Decided April 18, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The court below's application of the relevant provision of the Labor Standards Act to the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007) shall be corrected to the term "the former Labor Standards Act."

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As long as wages paid to workers are not paid within the statutory period, the issue of whether a worker received a subrogation from a third party, such as a human resources supplier, etc. thereafter does not have any relation to the establishment of the crime, and thus, we cannot accept the argument that the judgment below erred in the rules of evidence on the premise of objection.

In addition, the violation of the Labor Standards Act is not a crime subject to victim's complaint, but so-called crime subject to victim's complaint, so even if there was no victim's complaint or there was no intent to punish the victim, it cannot be said that the prosecution requirement

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Since there is an obvious error as stated in the relevant provision of the Criminal Procedure Regulation, among the application of the law of the judgment below, it is decided to revise ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)