Defendant

Defendant

authorized ruptures

Attorney Yellow-soo

Daejeon District Court Decision 2006 High Court Decision 454, 536 decided September 21, 2006

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The assertion that there is no obligation to pay the instant money

Around February 2005, there was an agreement between the labor and management to refuse to pay unpaid bonuses on July 1, 2004 and December 2004. A collective agreement between the labor and management on July 27, 2005 between the labor and management, each of which was paid 10% (total 650%) at the end of July, and 3, 6, 9, and 10% (total 400%) at the end of December, 200, and the remaining 250% was changed to be paid at the time of achieving business objectives. The collective agreement is retroactively applied to the above collective agreement from April 1, 2005, and even if the collective agreement is not applied to the above non-indicted, the defendant does not have any obligation to pay the difference as it is in accordance with the rules of employment of the defendant company.

B. The assertion that no intention had been intentional

Even if he was liable to pay the instant money, the Defendant did not pay the said money with the knowledge that he did not have any obligation to pay it under an agreement and a collective agreement between labor and management. Therefore, there was no intention to commit the instant crime.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion that there is no obligation to pay the instant money

In light of the records, even if there was an individual agreement and a collective agreement between the labor and management as alleged by the defendant, as long as each of the workers of this case did not have the right to consent or authorization, the above agreement and collective agreement shall not affect the workers of this case. The collective agreement of July 27, 2005, which was applied from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006, shall not be deemed to have been applied retroactively from April 1, 2005 (the trial record 125 pages).

In addition, applying the above collective agreement to non-members is practically changing the rules of employment to the disadvantage of workers. In order for an employer to change the rules of employment to a disadvantage to workers, the labor union should obtain the consent of the majority of workers if there is a labor union organized by a majority of workers in the workplace, and the labor union that formed the above collective agreement consists of workers considerably short of the majority of workers (Article 97(1) of the Labor Standards Act). According to the records, the above trade union cannot be the subject of the above consent, and it is difficult to view that there is any other consent of the majority of workers. Thus, it is difficult to see that the unfavorable rules of bonuses under the above collective agreement are immediately applicable to the non-indicted workers under the above rules of employment.

Therefore, the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion that there was no intention

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is difficult to view that the Defendant used to review the payment period of the unpaid bonus in 2004 as a result of the settlement of accounts in 2004 between the labor and management around February 2005, and agreed not to pay it clearly. It was difficult to view that the labor union, which entered into a collective agreement on July 27, 2005 with the Defendant company, was represented by 37 workers because it was composed of 37 workers who considerably fall short of the majority of the total 132 workers at that time, and that it was difficult to view that the agreement or collective agreement between the labor and management that the Defendant would not pay the bonus, etc. already occurred is valid without seeking legal advice from the law on whether the agreement or collective agreement between the labor and management that the Defendant would not pay the bonus, etc. already occurred is valid, and it is difficult to view that there was a considerable reason to believe that the Defendant had no awareness and intent to not pay the money within 14 days from the date of retirement, and that there was a collective agreement on bonuses or labor-management.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the defendant had the intention to commit the crime of this case, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)