beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special
When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.
Provided, That the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay the sum of D’s wages of 2,438,460 won for November 2013, 2013, wages of 2,769,230 won for December 2013, 2014, wages of 2,769,230 won for January 2, 2014, wages of 2,769,230 won for February 2, 2014, wages of 2,769,230 won for 2,769,230 won for March 30, 2014, wages of 2,769,230 won for 2,769,230 won for April 30, 2014, wages of 2,769, 2,769, 230 won for wages of 2,769, 230 won for May 2, 2014, 2013, 37, 20198 won for retirement.
(b) When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within one day after the cause for such payment occurred.
Provided, That the date of payment may be extended by an agreement between the parties if there is a special reason.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW D retirement allowance of KRW 9,597,020, working from December 30, 2010 to June 30, 2014 at the same place of business, within 14 days from the date of retirement in which the cause for the payment occurred, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.
2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which fall under Article 109(2) of the same Act or Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent under the proviso to Article 44 of the same Act.