beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the non-payment of the dismissal allowance is reversed.
Reasons
1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing all the facts charged in the instant case, and only the Prosecutor appealed on the ground of misapprehending the legal doctrine on violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the unpaid payment of pre-employment allowance among the lower judgment.
Therefore, the dismissal of the prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the payment of wages was separated and finalized as it is.
Ultimately, among the judgment below, only the violation of Labor Standards Act due to non-payment of the pre-employment allowance belongs to the scope of the judgment of this court.
2. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principle) is that the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the non-payment of the pre-employment allowance among the facts charged in the instant case does not constitute a crime of anti-presidential act, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle that the court below rendered a dismissal judgment on
3. Determination
A. The gist of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a representative of the D cafeteria located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, who has run a restaurant with eight full-time workers.
When an employer intends to dismiss a worker, he/she shall make a prior announcement at least 30 days, and if he/she fails to make a prior announcement at least 30 days, he/she shall pay the ordinary wages for at least 30 days.
Nevertheless, even though the Defendant dismissed workers E on June 15, 2012, the Defendant did not pay KRW 5,000,000 for the advance notice of dismissal.
B. The lower court dismissed the prosecution on the ground that this part of the facts charged falls under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish the Defendant on June 10, 2015, which was the date of indictment.
(c)
However, this part of the facts charged is clearly stated as a crime falling under Article 110 subparagraph 1 and Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act.