beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the dismissed part among the public prosecution, shall be reversed.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, E, G, H, J.
Reasons
1. The lower court dismissed the prosecution against the Defendant regarding the violation of the Labor Standards Act regarding B among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the Defendant of the remainder of the facts charged.
In regard to this, only the defendant appealed the above guilty part, and the rejection part of the public prosecution which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal is separated and confirmed as it is. Thus, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the guilty part of
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of violating the Labor Standards Act for the remaining workers, since the defendant paid all the unpaid wages to B, the representative of workers, and expressed that B does not want punishment, the court below should have rendered a dismissal judgment on all the charges of this case. However, the court below's dismissal judgment on the violation of the Labor Standards Act for B is dismissed, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.
3. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. The Defendant in this part of the facts charged is an individual architect with a domicile in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C and 503, who employed five full-time workers and performed the floor construction in the “Seongnam-gun D Commercial Building Construction Project”.
When an employee retires, an employer shall pay the wages, compensations, retirement allowances, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.
Provided, That the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.
Nevertheless, the Defendant worked at the above construction site from May 28, 2015 to June 25, 2015, KRW 1,000,000.