logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.09.10 2019고정1585
근로기준법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of C in the third floor of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu B building, who is an employer who operates a physical training center with three regular workers.

When a worker retires, the employer shall pay all money and valuables, such as wages, within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the Defendant worked from May 29, 2018 to November 30, 2018 of the same year at the same workplace and did not pay KRW 500,000,000 of the retired workers D’s wages on September 2018, 2018, wage of October 1, 2018, wage of KRW 1,600,000 (total 3,700,000) and KRW 1,600,000 of the portion paid on November 1, 2018 (total 3,700,000) and KRW 90,000,000 of the retired workers E from July 18, 2018 to November 30 of the same year; and did not pay KRW 90,00,000 of the wages on November 1, 2018 (total 1,80,000,050) within 10,500.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement D or E in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of each police statement made to D and E, the transaction passbook, Kakao Stockholm text messages, and text messages;

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 16270, Jan. 15, 2019); Article 44 Subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act (amended by Act No. 16270, Jan. 15, 201);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant terminated the existing employment contract with D, E, and E on or around September 2018, and entered into a contract for the entrustment of business to D and E from October 2018 to entrust D and E with the business of the contact center. As such, D and E are only engaged in independent business from October 2018.

arrow