logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.08 2017노3332
직업안정법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Progress;

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

B. The prosecutor of the judgment prior to remand filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below on the grounds of misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, and the trial prior to remand accepted the appeal by the prosecutor, and reversed the judgment below and sentenced the defendant to a fine of KRW 1.5 million.

(c)

The Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance prior to remand, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court prior to remand and remanded the case to this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The judgment of the court below which limited the subject of violation of Article 34 of the Employment Stabilization Act to “a person who intends to recruit workers” is subject to another Supreme Court decision (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do595 Decided July 12, 2002).

In addition, unlike the legislative intent of the Employment Stabilization Act and Article 34 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it has interpreted the false job offering advertisements or the violation of the Employment Stabilization Act in the case of false job offering advertisements or false job offering conditions, and has misunderstanding legal principles.

B. Even if such restrictive interpretation is reasonable, the Defendant, as “a person who operates a job placement business free of charge or with care,” was able to engage in false job offering advertising, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not constitute a person who intended to recruit an employee, who is the subject of violation of Article 34 of the Employment Stabilization Act.

B. According to Article 2-2 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Employment Stabilization of Workers, the term “solicitation” means that a person who intends to employ a worker solicits a person who intends to employ a worker to be employed as an employee or has another person recommend a person to be employed, and the Act on the Employment Stabilization of Workers is an employee.

arrow