logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.16 2016노2182
근로기준법위반등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not have intention to commit the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Workers’ Retirement Benefit Security Act.

B. In light of the fact that: (a) there was no time to claim annual allowances from the Defendant until the Defendant was accused of a criminal case due to the divulgence of business secrets; (b) there was no criminal history against the Defendant; and (c) there was no time to pay the wages of the employees belonging thereto; and (d) the Defendant already paid the wages specified in the facts charged to D, the punishment (amount to KRW 300,000) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In the event that there are grounds for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc., there are reasonable grounds for the employer’s failure to pay the said wages, etc.

As such, the employer had the intent to commit the crime of violation of Article 36 and Article 109 (1) of the Labor Standards Act.

It is difficult to see it.

Whether there is any ground for dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. ought to be determined in light of the grounds for refusal of payment by the employer, the grounds for such obligation, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the purpose of business, and other circumstances at the time of dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do8248, Oct. 13, 201; 2013Do12730, Jul. 9, 2015). Such legal doctrine applies to cases where determining intent to commit a crime under Articles 9 and 44 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.

(2) Various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the instant workplace granted employees a 15-day annual leave from the second year after entering the workplace, and if annual leave is used, a procedure was prepared to receive leave in advance and approve it. D also has been during the period of service.

arrow