beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the C representative in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and 1, who employs three full-time workers and operates a main store business.
(a) When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred;
Provided, That in special circumstances, the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,00,00 for the part-time wages of July 28, 2014, to August 13, 2015, which were retired from the said workplace, as well as KRW 225,000 for the part-time leave allowances of January 2015, KRW 112,50 for the part-time leave allowances of February 2, 2015, KRW 225,00 for the part-time leave allowances of March 3, 200, KRW 168,750 for the part-time leave allowances of April 4, 200, KRW 168,750 for the part-time leave allowances of May 5, 200, KRW 1,012,50 for the part-time leave allowances of June 112, 200 for the part-time leave allowances of KRW 112,500 for the part-time leave allowances of April 16, 2015.
(b) Where an employee retires, an employer shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred;
Provided, That the payment date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 1,907,723 of D retirement pay, which was retired from the said workplace from July 28, 2014 to August 13, 2015, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of payment deadline.
2. We examine the judgment, which is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, and which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits. According to the written withdrawal of complaint filed in the trial records of this case, the victim D is a victim.