logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.04.16 2015고정77
근로기준법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an individual construction business operator who is a user of the building outer wall in Ansan-gu D, Ansan-gu.

The Defendant did not respectively pay KRW 2,170,000 for E’s wages, who worked from March 11, 2014 to April 6, 2014 at the construction site, and KRW 850,00 for F’s wages, who worked from March 10, 2014 to April 6, 2014, and KRW 4,380,00 for three workers, including G wage of KRW 1,360,000, who worked from March 10, 2014 to April 9, 2014, without agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties, within 14 days from the date of retirement.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning details of overdue payments;

1. Relevant Articles of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 109 (1) and 36 of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

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. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of this part of the facts charged is an individual construction business operator who is an employer who has carried out tiny works on the outer wall of the building in Ansan-gu, Mayang-gu.

The Defendant did not pay KRW 2,275,000 for workers B who worked at the construction site from March 12, 2014 to April 9, 2014, and KRW 350,000 for workers C who worked from March 11, 2014 to March 19, 2014, respectively, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. Each of the facts charged regarding this part of the judgment is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act.

According to the records, the facts that B and C expressed their intention not to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case. Thus, pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow