logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.02.27 2018고단4147
근로기준법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a user who has been engaged in restaurant business with five full-time workers as the representative of the C in the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

The Defendant is working in the foregoing workplace from January 1, 2016 to January 10, 2018.

A retired worker D’s wage of KRW 2,00,000 on February 2, 2016, wage of KRW 2,000,000 on March 2, 2016, wage of KRW 2,200,000 on August 2, 2016, wage of KRW 2,200,000 on January 2, 2017, wage of KRW 2,200,000 on July 2, 2017, wage of KRW 2,50,000 on September 2, 2017, wage of KRW 2,50,000 on December 2, 200, wage of KRW 806,451 on January 1, 208, total KRW 16,206,451 on December 31, 2017, and KRW 2,50 on December 18, 2017.

Workers E, who retired, worked for the period from January 3, 2018 to January 10, 2018, and ③ from January 3, 2018 to January 10, 2018.

A retired worker F shall work for the amount of KRW 700,000 on January 1, 2018, and ④ from December 20, 2017 to January 10, 2018.

Retired Workers G 650,00 won of wages on December 1, 2017, and 700,000 won of wages on January 2018, and 1,350,000 won in total, and 5,00 won from November 1, 2017 to January 10, 2018.

21,656,451 won in total, including wage 2,00,000 won in December 2, 2017 and wage 700,000, total amount of 2,700,000 won in January 2018, was not paid respectively within 14 days from the date of each retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written petition of D;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, and the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant only has 25% shares in the facts constituting the crime C (hereinafter "the restaurant of this case") and is not an employer.

The following can be known from the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court:

arrow