beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is a worker employed by Co-Defendant A in the lower court and worked in F, not a G employer.
2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that Co-defendant A is the actual business owner of F in Gwangju City, and the Defendant is the business management manager of the said F, and A and the Defendant are operating a household manufacturing wholesale and retail business with two full-time workers at the said workplace. The same year from July 1, 2013 to the said workplace.
8. G’s wages of KRW 2,130,00 for July 7, 2013 and KRW 3,256,00 for August 8, 2013, and KRW 5,386,00 for total amount of KRW 5,386,00 for each party’s retirement date without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged as evidence of the witness G’s statement and the statement of each police interrogation protocol against A and the Defendant.
3. Article 2(1)2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the term "employer" means a business owner, a person in charge of business management, or any other person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters relating to workers, and the term "business manager" refers to a person who represents or acts on behalf of a business owner with a comprehensive delegation from the business owner for all or part of the business management, and "a person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to other matters relating to workers" refers to a person who has certain authority and responsibilities from the business owner with respect to the determination of working conditions, such as workers' personnel, wages, welfare, labor management, etc., or orders, direction, or supervision, etc. of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8364, May 11, 2006).