beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, as the representative director of the F stock company in the wife population E, is an employer who runs construction business using more than 10 full-time workers.
From February 19, 2014 to April 11, 2015, the Defendant did not pay 114,262,574 won, including 7,381,080 won from January 1, 2015 to April 2015 of his/her retired workers H, who were employed at the site of the Seoul Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government New Construction Corporation, and 18 workers who retired from office at the site of the said new construction project, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, for whom 106,525,590 won, and 114,262,574 won, including 18 workers who retired from office, who were employed at the site of the said new construction project, within 14 days from the date of his/her retirement without an agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties.
2. The crime of violating the Labor Standards Act due to the failure to pay wages is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which is an offense of non-compliance with intent of the victim under Article 109(2) of the same Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the express intent of the victim under Article 109(2) of the same Act. The offense of violating the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits due to the failure to pay wages constitutes an offense falling under Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Labor Standards Act, and also constitutes an offense of non-compliance with intent pursuant to the proviso to
In this regard, according to the statement of withdrawal of each appeal (appeal) submitted to this court on April 14, 2016, 18 workers stated in the list of annexed crimes expressed their wish not to be subject to criminal punishment against the defendant after the prosecution of this case, or withdrawn their wish to punish the defendant.
Therefore, according to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the public prosecution of this case against the defendant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.