logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.09.22 2016고단2610
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as the actual representative of C in the branch of the B building in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, is an employer who conducts the clothing manufacturing business by using five full-time workers.

(a) An employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall, if a worker retires, pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred;

Nevertheless, the Defendant had worked at the above workplace from October 19, 2015 to April 18, 2016, and had not paid KRW 2,850,000 of the wages of retired workers D within 14 days from the date of retirement, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and did not pay KRW 14,260,000 in total for five workers within 14 days from the date of retirement, respectively.

(b) An employer who violates the Act on Guarantee of Retirement Benefits of a worker shall pay a retirement allowance within fourteen days after the ground for such payment occurred, in case where the worker retires; and

Nevertheless, the Defendant had worked from June 1, 2014 to April 18, 2016 at the same place of business and had not paid KRW 2,439,118 of retirement allowances E of retired workers within 14 days from the date of retirement.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are the crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Workers’ Retirement Benefits Guarantee Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Workers’ Retirement Benefits Guarantee Act.

However, after the prosecution of this case, the victims have withdrawn their wish to punish the defendant by submitting a written withdrawal of the petition stating that they do not want to punish the defendant.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow