logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.09.04 2018고정603
근로기준법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The correction shall be made in the same manner as the written indictment ex officio without changing the indictment to the extent that the defendant's defense right is not substantially disadvantaged.

The defendant is a non-exclusive contractor who subcontracts 638,00,000 won to F without a construction business license while executing the new construction of green living facilities D as the representative director of the Co., Ltd. located in Co., Ltd. in Co., Ltd. as the representative director of the Co., Ltd.

G is a person who received a subcontract from the above F to KRW 440,00,000 for a mold construction work from August 28, 2016 to March 14, 2017.

Where a construction business has been carried out two or more times of a contract defined in subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and where a sewage supplier who is not a constructor defined in subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the same Act fails to pay wages to his/her workers, the immediate upper-tier supplier shall be jointly and severally with a sewage supplier to pay wages to his/her workers.

In such cases, if the immediate upper contractor is not a constructor referred to in Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the constructor referred to in the same subparagraph of the lowest among his/her upper contractor shall be deemed the immediate upper contractor.

The Defendant did not pay the total of 36,650,00 won of wages of 29 workers within 14 days from the date of each individual’s retirement, as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including the wage of 90,000,000 won, which was used by G as a punishment mold from February 4, 2017 to March 14, 2017 at the same construction site, without any agreement on extension of the payment deadline.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police officer in relation to G;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of H, I and F;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 44-2 of the relevant Act and the former Labor Standards Act (Amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017); and the choice of each fine for a crime

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

arrow