logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.08.27 2018고단4909
근로기준법위반등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the representative of “C” in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul, and is an employer who runs a household manufacturing business with ten full-time workers.

The Defendant served in the said workplace from October 19, 201 to June 30, 2018, and paid the sum of KRW 5,288,016 and retirement allowances of KRW 18,541,490, and KRW 7,917,285, and KRW 11,123,287, and KRW 42,870,078, including total sum of KRW 11,870,07, and total amount of retirement allowances of KRW 142,870,078 from September 23, 2013 to April 30, 2018, the Defendant did not agree between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Some statements in the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution and the police statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Each statement of D, E, and F;

1. Application of a copy of a bankbook, a financial transaction statement, a statement of calculation of average wages and retirement allowances (not more than 15 pages of evidence records), average wages and retirement allowances calculation statement, and a statement of transactions (not more than 39 pages of evidence records);

1. Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act applicable to criminal facts, and Article 44 Subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (a point of payment of retirement allowances);

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

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent offenders, the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act was nine times prior to the Defendant, including the previous case. The Defendant denied the obligation to pay retirement allowances per se based on an interim settlement application, a written confirmation of interim settlement of retirement allowances, and a written confirmation of interim settlement of accounts for retirement allowances, which was formally accepted from the instant employees, and concluded an inclusive wage system explicitly or implicitly with the employees D by not paying business suspension allowances and annual leave allowances.

arrow