Requirements for disciplinary action against workers under Article 107 and Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act to be subject to criminal punishment under Article 107 and Article 27(1)

Even in cases where an employer cannot recognize the validity of disciplinary action because he/she did not follow the prescribed procedures for the disciplinary action against a worker, barring special circumstances such as intentionally disregarding the procedure with the employer's intent to impose unfair disciplinary action, the employer cannot immediately be subject to criminal punishment pursuant to Articles 107 and 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act on the sole ground of such violation of the procedure. In this context, such disciplinary action is recognized as abuse of the right to disciplinary action or beyond the scope thereof in its content, and is subject to criminal punishment only in cases where it is assessed as a violation of social norms.

Articles 27(1) and 107 of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Cho Yong-ok

Suwon District Court Decision 95No303 delivered on August 10, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

Even in cases where an employer cannot recognize the validity of disciplinary action because he/she did not take a prescribed procedure for the disciplinary action against a worker, barring special circumstances such as intentionally disregarding the procedure for disciplinary action with the employer's intent to impose unfair disciplinary action, the employer cannot immediately be subject to criminal punishment under Articles 107 and 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act on the sole ground of such violation of the procedure. In this context, such disciplinary action is recognized as abuse of the right to disciplinary action or beyond the scope thereof in its content, and it is deemed that it is subject to criminal punishment only in cases where it is assessed to be punished by social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do3128, Jun. 14, 1994).

After finding the facts as stated in its holding, if the defendant was dismissed as the non-indicted because he did not work continuously in the company while dissatisfied with the order to change the placement order of the defendant for the purpose of enhancing public confidence in the trading company of this case and establishing the work period, and did not work at the company three times later, despite the demand for normal work, the above dismissal cannot be recognized by the personnel committee's resolution in the above dismissal, it is difficult to say that the defendant intentionally neglected the procedure of disciplinary action with the intention to impose unfair disciplinary action against the non-indicted. Rather, it is not unreasonable to judge that there is a justifiable reason to punish the non-indicted. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have intentionally committed an intentional act in violation of Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the defendant acquitted the non-indicted on the ground that the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, or in misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 107 and Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)