logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.08.10 2017고정883
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

C The representative of C is a user who has been operating a manufacturing industry (non-permanent and non-commercial household appliances) with five full-time workers.

(a) When a worker retires or dies, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurs;

Nevertheless, the Defendant had worked from April 8, 2013 to June 15, 2016 at the same place of business, and had not paid the total wage of KRW 11,365,765, as shown in the attached Form, such as the wages of KRW 1,032,432 of December 2015 of the retired workers D, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the payment deadline.

(b) An employer shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the reasons for payment occur, if a worker retires;

Nevertheless, the Defendant employed the said workplace from April 8, 2013 to June 15, 2016, and employed the retired employee D retirement pay of KRW 6,308,755, and from the said workplace from October 1, 2010 to June 15, 2016, and did not pay KRW 14,118,819 of retirement pay of retired employee E within 14 days from the date of each retirement without agreement on the extension of the payment deadline between the parties.

2. We examine the judgment. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 44 subparag. 1 of the Workers’ Retirement Benefit Guarantee Act, and Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Workers’ Retirement Benefit Guarantee Act, which cannot be prosecuted differently from the victim’s express intent under the proviso of Article 44 of the Act. According to the records, the facts can be acknowledged that workers D and E expressed their wish not to punish each of the Defendant, and thus, the instant prosecution in the instant case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow