logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2017.01.19 2016고단785
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative of the Council (State) in B, runs a construction business by employing ten full-time workers.

(a) When a worker dies or retires, an employer violating the Labor Standards Act shall pay him/her wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred, unless there exists an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on May 16, 2014, did not pay KRW 1,200,00 in March 2014, KRW 2,700 in April wage, KRW 1,306,450 in May wage, KRW 1,50 in December 15, 2014, KRW 1,500 in December 2013 of E, who retired from the said place of business, and KRW 1,500,00 in January 1, 200 in January 2014, KRW 749,99 in February wage, and KRW 8,956,449 in total, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment period.

(b) An employer who violates the Act on Guarantee of Retirement Benefits of Workers shall, in cases where a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within 14 days after the ground for such payment occurred, unless the parties have agreed to extend the payment deadline.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, around May 16, 2014, did not pay KRW 23,96,217 as well as KRW 18,307,035, and KRW 23,96,217, including KRW 5,659,182, who retired from the said place of business on February 15, 2014, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of the payment deadline between the parties.

2. Determination

(a) Each crime of non-violation of intention (Article 109 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act);

B. Indication of intention not to punish each employee after the prosecution of this case ( January 17, 2017)

(c) Grounds for a judgment dismissing a public prosecution (Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act);

arrow