All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Around May 2010, according to evidence, such as G’s statement that Defendant A requested correction of night allowance and duty allowance payment after writing, and audit report of May 27, 2010, stating “the payment of night night duty allowance and unpaid payment of holiday duty allowance”, the Defendants were urged from G, etc., so it can be sufficiently recognized that there was an intentional breach of duty to liquidate money and valuables. However, the lower court acquitted Defendant on the charges of this case by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

If there are grounds for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., it shall be deemed that there is a considerable reason for the employer to pay wages, etc., and it is difficult to recognize that the employer had an intention to commit a violation of Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there exists any ground for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. shall be determined in light of all the circumstances at the time of dispute over the grounds for refusal of payment by the employer, the grounds for the obligation to pay wages, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the purpose of business, and the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc., and it shall not be concluded that the employer has the intention to commit a violation of Articles 36 and 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, on the ground that the employer has the civil liability for payment after the fact that the employer is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14693, Oct. 27, 2011).