[1] The meaning of "an act of interference in the employment of another person for profit" and "an act of acquiring profits as intermediary" prohibited under Article 8 of the former Labor Standards Act

[2] The case holding that where a person receives a job recommendation from a large enterprise upon receiving a request for job placement, and then receives money in the name of the member, it is only a matter of whether the person's act of "the intervention in the employment of another person for profit" under Article 8 of the former Labor Standards Act is not an intermediate act of acquiring profits

[1] Article 8 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007) provides that "no person shall intervene in the employment of another person for profit or gain profits as an intermediary, unless otherwise provided by the Act." The prohibited act in this context refers to the act of "participation in the employment of another person for profit" and "the act of "the act of "the act of interference in the employment of another person for profit" and "the act of "the act of interference in the employment of another person for profit" refers to the act of affecting the formation or renewal of labor relations, such as introducing or arranging the employment of the other person for profit, and the act of "the act of acquiring profits as an intermediate" refers to the act of acquiring profits from an employer or an employee in the middle of labor relations between an employer and an employee

[2] The case holding that the issue is only whether an act of "involving another person's employment for profit" under Article 8 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007) is an act of "involving another person's employment for profit," and it does not constitute an "acquisition of profits as an intermediate person" where a person receives a job recommendation after obtaining a job recommendation from a large enterprise upon receiving a request for job placement.

[1] Article 8 (see current Article 9) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007) / [2] Articles 8 (see current Article 9) and 110 (see current Article 107) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Ulsan District Court Decision 2005No973 Decided April 6, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 8 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007) provides that "no person shall intervene in the employment of another person for profit or gain profits as an intermediary, unless otherwise provided by the Act." The prohibited act is an act of "participation in the employment of another person for profit" and "an act of "in the employment of another person for profit" and "an act of interference in the employment of another person for profit" refers to an act of affecting the establishment or renewal of labor relations, such as introducing or arranging the employment of a third person for profit, and "an act of acquiring profits as an intermediary" refers to an act of acquiring profits from an employer or an employee in the middle of labor relations between an employer and an employee during the existence of labor contract.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant should intervene in the employment of the other party or acquire profits as an intermediate "for profit" because it is insufficient that the defendant's participation in the employment of the other party or acquisition of profits as an intermediary in the employment of the other party, and even if the defendant received money or goods in relation to the employment of the other party under Articles 8 and 110 of the former Labor Standards Act, he should be punished not for all cases, but for cases where he participated in the profit-making intention but for profit-making purpose. In light of the records of this case, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant received money or goods in relation to the employment of the other party under Article 8 and 110 of the former Labor Standards Act.

However, in light of the above legal principles and records, the defendant's act cannot be deemed to constitute "the intermediate acquisition of profits", and only constitutes "the intervention in the employment of another person for profit". Thus, the court below erred in finding that the defendant's act as stated in the judgment constitutes "the intermediate acquisition of profits", but it is just in its conclusion that the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case that "the defendant acquired profits as intermediary," and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)