logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2013.06.21 2012고정2295
근로기준법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an individual business operator who has his/her domicile in Seo-gu Incheon Building 303 and runs a construction business by employing four full-time workers.

The Defendant, as stated in the detailed statement of the money and valuables in arrears in the attached Form, did not pay KRW 26,110,000 to workers F, G, and H’s total amount of wages within 14 days from the date of retirement, without any agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties concerned, as well as KRW 3,50,000, retired on May 1, 2012 through August 6, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and C;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to details of overdue money and valuables;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the facts charged is an individual entrepreneur who has a domicile in the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D Building 303 and runs a construction business by hireing four full-time workers.

The Defendant did not pay KRW 2,50,000 of the retired portion of the wages of May 5, 2012, and KRW 4,500,000 for July 2012, 2012, the sum of wages of KRW 7,00,00,00 from May 1, 2012 to August 31, 2012, at the site of Kimpo-si E-sports Group C, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment period.

2. The reasoning of this part of the facts charged cannot be prosecuted against the employee’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act. Since on June 4, 2013, after the institution of the instant indictment, C expressed his/her intention not to prosecute the Defendant, this part of the indictment is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow