logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.01.28 2014고정65
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 C Language Institute, which is located under the 501 Sinyang-dong, Busan Metropolitan City B, is an employer who runs a private teaching institute business using five regular workers.

The Defendant, at the same place of business, worked from June 1, 201 to February 7, 2013 and retired workers D’s wages amounting to KRW 1,250,000 for January 2013, as well as KRW 7,124,90 for the total amount of wages of four workers, as shown in the attached list of crimes in the attached list of crimes, did not pay KRW 14 days from the date of each retirement, without any agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties concerned.

B. The Defendant, who served on June 1, 201 through February 7, 2013 and served on February 3, 2012, 3,820,230 of retirement allowances of retired workers D and from February 5, 2012 to February 7, 2013, did not pay KRW 6,143,360 from the date of each retirement to the expiration of 14 days from the date of the retirement without agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties.

2. We examine the judgment, the above 1. A.

The facts charged in the charge of an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act cannot be prosecuted against the express will of the victim under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and one-half (b).

A public prosecution may not be instituted against the clearly expressed will of the victim under the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, as an offense falling under subparagraph 1 of Article 44 or Article 9 of the same Act.

However, according to the records, it can be recognized that the victim D, F, E, and G has withdrawn the wishing to punish the defendant on or around January 27, 2014, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted by the victim D, F, E, and G. Thus, all of the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of

arrow