beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the complainants of this case are not workers, and the defendant does not bear the duty to pay retirement benefits, and even if he is a family worker, the defendant did not recognize that he is a worker, so there was no intention on violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a user who runs a telecommunications construction business using 60 full-time workers as the representative of the (ju)F in Gwangju City E.
The Defendant did not pay retirement allowances of KRW 20,777,040 in total to three employees, including retirement allowances of KRW 3,597,040, to G who worked from around August 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment period between the parties.
B. According to the evidence, the court below held that the complainants of this case were forced to attend the meeting at 08:30 am a day, and it was acknowledged that the complainants were forced to attend the meeting at 08:30 am a day, and that they had worked in accordance with the management region and business instruction set by the defendant company, and that they were individually registered as business operators and received fees for each establishment without basic pay, and that the defendant company did not have any provision to manage the arrangement of the installation engineers like the complainants in the form of a commission without basic pay, and that the defendant company did not purchase four insurance for the complainants, and that they did not bear any cost of dealing with the accident that occurred during the course of operation or work. However, the complainants were forced to attend the meeting at 08:30 am a day, and that they were forced to work in accordance with the management region and business instruction set by the defendant company, and that they worked without returning to the company when the work is completed at the business site.