logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.04.23 2015고단958
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

The defendant is the representative director of D in charge of a business management (Internet homepage management) with four regular workers, who is a representative director of D in the dispute settlement center in Busan Metropolitan City, and is an employer.

1. When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within 14 days, unless there exists any agreement between the parties on the extension of the fixed date from the time when the cause for such payment occurred;

Nevertheless, the defendant is working until August 29, 2014 at the above workplace.

Wages E of retired workers, including 10,839,789 won, did not pay 29,359,822 won to three workers within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

2. When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within 14 days, unless agreed between the parties concerned regarding the extension of the fixed date, from the time when the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the defendant is working until August 29, 2014 at the above workplace.

The retirement allowance of retired workers E, including 4,407,543 won, was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on extension of the due date, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

Judgment

On the other hand, the facts charged in this case 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 Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act. According to the records of this case, it can be recognized that workers withdraw their wish to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed under Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow