beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The representative of misunderstanding of facts D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) is a representative director I, and the Defendant is merely an intermediate chief executive officer, and the Defendant cannot be deemed an employer under the Labor Standards Act.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, Articles 109 and 36 of the Labor Standards Act are employers, and Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “the employer” is “the employer, or the person in charge of business operation, or any other person who acts on behalf of the employer with respect to the matters relating to workers.” Here, “the person in charge of business management” refers to the person who represents or acts on behalf of the employer with comprehensive delegation from the employer for all or part of the business operation, and “the person who acts on behalf of the employer with respect to the matters relating to workers,” “the person who acts on behalf of the employer” refers to the person who employs or dismisses workers with the authority delegated by the employer or the person in charge of business management, and determines and implements matters concerning working conditions such as working hours or wages.
In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant was registered as a inside director of the company of this case and actually serves as a representative director. The defendant constitutes a person in charge of business management or a person who acts for a business owner in relation to matters relating to workers, and thus, constitutes an employer, the court below found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case.