beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of grounds for appeal;
A. C and D agreed to determine the unpaid wage as KRW 3 million and to pay it by October 31, 2013.
In addition, the defendant agreed to determine D and unpaid wages as KRW 1.5 million and to pay it until October 31, 2013.
Since then, the Defendant paid KRW 1.5 million to C and D respectively.
Therefore, the unpaid wages to C are only 1.5 million won, and D does not have any unpaid wages.
(b) there is no wage payable to E as it does not have employed a non-settlement of wages E on a daily basis.
(c)
C Of the 14-month period of employment of C unpaid retirement pay to C, three months are formally employed by the university at the upper university to increase the employment rate of graduates, and thus C’s actual employment period has not elapsed 11 months, so there is no retirement allowance to C.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.
The crime of violation of Article 44 subparagraph 1, Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits and Article 109 (1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act are related to an ordinary concurrent crime under Article 40 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13244, Apr. 25, 2013). In such a case, the lower court identified the crime of violation of Article 44 subparagraph 1, Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits and Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act against C as a substantive concurrent crime and omitted an ordinary concurrent crime in the application of the Act and subordinate statutes.
The above mistake affected the conclusion of the judgment.
In this respect, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.
However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial by this court, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority.
B. Judgment 1 on the assertion of mistake of fact 1) The court below legitimately adopted the fact that the court below recognized the unrefising of wages C and D.