logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.05.12 2017고단206
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is an employer who is a full-time employee with the trade name of 30 full-time employees in the D located in Tong Young-si Co., Ltd., who runs a vessel vessel processing business.

1. The Defendant in violation of the Labor Standards Act did not pay 193,342,830 won in total of 34 retired workers within 14 days from the date of each retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of payment deadline, as shown in the list of crimes attached hereto, while working for the said company from October 12, 2015 to October 31, 2016, and retired from office.

2. The Defendant who violated the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for Workers: (a) served in the said company from October 12, 2015 to October 31, 2016; (b) did not pay KRW 2,426,420 of the G retirement allowances retired from the said company while serving in the said company from October 7, 2015 to October 31, 2016; and (c) did not pay KRW 2,426,420 of the retirement allowances retired from the said company within 14 days from the date of each retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

2. We examine the judgment. The facts charged of this case are crimes 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 cannot be prosecuted against the express will of the victimized employee 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 records, the facts can be acknowledged on April 18, 2017, which was after the public prosecution of this case was instituted, that the above victimized employee expressed his/her wish not to punish the Defendant. Thus, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow