beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is the representative of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B and D with subparagraph C, who runs a construction business.
1. Violation of the Labor Standards Act;
A. The Defendant, who was working in the foregoing workplace from October 11, 2014 to September 10, 2018, did not pay KRW 50,658,064, respectively, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date, while working in the same workplace as the number of attached crimes Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 of E, including the wage of KRW 3,000,00,000, which was retired.
B. The Defendant had not paid KRW 13,200,000 in total of the above F’s wages on May 2, 2018, including the F’s wage of KRW 2,200,000, which had been working in the said workplace from November 2, 2009, on the 10th day of the following month, respectively, as shown in the [Attachment] No. 2, such as the wage of KRW 2,200,000.
2. The Defendant in violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act did not pay KRW 75,624,654, respectively, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date between the parties concerned, while serving in the said workplace from October 11, 2014 to September 10, 2018, as described in attached Table 2, such as E retirement allowance of KRW 11,505,955, and retired.
2. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's explicit intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act. According to the records, the damaged workers can be recognized as having expressed their wish not to punish the defendant when submitting each written agreement after the institution of the prosecution in this case. Thus, the above facts can be acknowledged, under Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.