logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.03.25 2014고단2088
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative of the limited liability company C in the Full-si B in the Jeonsan-si, is an employer who engages in construction business with twelve full-time workers.

When a worker dies or retires, an employer shall pay the wages, compensations, retirement allowances, and all other money and valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Provided, That the date may be extended by an agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that the Defendant is a clerical error in the foregoing workplace on August 31, 2014, as indicated in the facts charged, from January 1, 2006 to August 31, 2014, is a clerical error on August 31, 2014.

Until then, work shall be

D's monthly wage of 2 million won from January to August 2014, each of the wages of 16 million won, retirement allowance of 16,965,455 won, and retirement allowance of 16,965, and 455 won, respectively, did not be paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date.

2. The offense of violating the Labor Standards Act stated in the facts charged in this case is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and the offense of violating the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits is an offense falling under Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the proviso of Article 44 of the same Act.

However, according to the statement in the letter of withdrawal of complaint prepared by D bound in the records, it can be acknowledged that D, the victim, had withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on March 5, 2015, which was after the prosecution of this case.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act since the victim withdraws his/her wish to punish a case which cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victim.

arrow