beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the public prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act by workers B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, and rendered a judgment of conviction against the remaining workers K, and L, and only the Defendant appealed against the aforementioned guilty portion.
Therefore, since the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below against which the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal is finalized, it is limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. The crime stipulated in Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which is instituted against the written withdrawal of a complaint submitted by the defendant at the trial of the party, is an offense of non-prosecution which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act.
A declaration of intent desired to punish a single case may be withdrawn before the pronouncement of a judgment in the first instance trial (Article 232(3) and (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Moreover, revocation of an expression of intent intended to revoke an accusation or to punish a person is a legal act against an investigation agency or a court, and such withdrawal shall be made before the institution of an accusation is instituted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do17264, Feb. 23, 2012). Moreover, the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish a person who suffers from a crime of non-violation of an intention.
In order for recognition, the victim’s true intent should be expressed in a way that enables clear and trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5737, Oct. 25, 2007). According to the records, K, L, the Defendant filed a petition with the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Agency on the ground of delayed payment of wages on November 21, 2014, and workers K, and L, which are prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, also on December 8, 2015.