Defendant

Defendant

J. J. J.T.

Attorney Yellow-woon

Daegu District Court Decision 2005 High Court Decision 299 Decided September 7, 2006

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

1) As to the facts charged No. 1

The victims were the employees of the East Korean University Medical Center and the Kan Korean Medical Center. In light of the articles of association, the organization rules, and the mutual relationship between the organizations of the above corporations, the court below convicted the above victims of this part of the facts charged despite the fact that the defendant, who is the director of the Nan Korean Medical Center, is not the employer under the Labor Standards Act who is obligated to pay wages in arrears. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) As to the facts charged under paragraph (2)

Although the racing hospital changed the start and end time of recess hours as prescribed in the collective agreement, there is no change in the number of hours allowed for individual workers, and this does not constitute a violation of the collective agreement since it is merely an ordinarily acceptable extent by providing convenience to the hospital users and improving the management status of the hospital. Thus, the change of recess hours in this case was made by the racing hospital on its own, and the Defendant did not intervene therein, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

In light of various circumstances, such as the fact that all overdue wages were paid, the degree of involvement of the defendant, and the fact that there was no previous conviction, the punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the defendant acknowledged the objective facts stated in the facts charged of this case, but the defendant was not an employer who is not liable for the delayed payment of wages under the Labor Standards Act, and was not in violation of the collective agreement on the recess hours, and was stated that there was no involvement in the change of recess hours, and thus, although the defendant did not have led to a confession on the facts charged in the court, the court below determined that the defendant was led to a confession on the facts charged, and determined that the case should be judged by the simplified trial procedure, and that the court below found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case by adding the evidence after the examination of evidence on the macroscopic evidence of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by finding

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

Since the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, it shall be quoted by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Part of the defendant's statement in the original judgment and the trial court of the party;

1. Statement of each police statement of Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6

1. Articles of association, organization regulations, division of duties, rules on delegation, and employment rules of the relevant school juristic person or college;

1. Statement of the collective agreement, 2003;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Point of payment of wages: Articles 112 (1) and 42 (Selection of Fine for Negligence) of each Labor Standards Act;

(b) Violation of a collective agreement: Article 92 subparagraph 1 (b) and Article 31 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes: The former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation for Concurrent Crimes with Punishment and Punishment as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act concerning Seven Victims of the largest punishment and punishment);

1. Detention at a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Provisional payment order: Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. As to the facts charged under paragraph (1)

The defendant asserts that it does not constitute an employer who is liable to pay wages in arrears to the above victims as seen in the summary of the grounds for appeal.

The term "employer subject to the Labor Standards Act" refers to a business owner, a person in charge of business operation, or any other person who acts on behalf of the business owner with respect to matters concerning workers," and the term "business manager" refers to a person who is responsible for general business operation and represents or acts for external business with comprehensive delegation of all or part of the business operation by the business owner. Considering the above evidence, an educational foundation's university has a hospital affiliated with the Korean Medical University other than those where 16 employees, such as non-indicted 8, and non-indicted 9, work for which 101 employees, such as employees, etc. work for the Korean Medical Center and the Korean Medical Center, and it is the head of the relevant hospital as a substitute for the operation of each hospital, but it is difficult for the defendant to obtain approval for the operation of the above hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital from the above affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital and its affiliated hospital's. The defendant and its affiliated hospital's's cannot be accepted.

B. As to the indictment No. 2

According to the above evidence, since the Medical Center established a collective agreement with the Dong University of Korea Industrial Health and Medical Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Medical Center") in 203 and agreed to allow its ordinary working hours from 12:30 p.m. to 30 p.m., the above medical center's racing hospital's employees to change its working conditions from 20 p.m. to 12:0 p.m. to 20 p.m. before and after the above time, the Defendant did not change its working hours from 12:0 p.m. to 12:0 p.m. to 12:0 p.m., and the above change of its working conditions to 30 p.m. to 1:0 p.m. after the above time, the Defendant did not request the above change of its working conditions from the hospital's employees to 30 p.m. as it did not change its working conditions to 1:0 p.m., the Defendant did not request the above change of its working conditions.

Judges Jo Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)