beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a representative of C in accordance with Section B 210, who employs eight full-time workers and operates the business of manufacturing printed circuit board. A.
The Defendant violated the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits was not paid respectively within 14 days from the date of retirement, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment period, KRW 14,874,150 of D retirement pay from May 28, 2004 to July 31, 2012, including KRW 14,874,150 of D retirement pay, and KRW 6,88,860 of E retirement pay from April 16, 2009 to October 4, 2012, and KRW 23,719,050 of F retirement pay working from March 30, 201 to October 11, 2012.
B. The Defendant, in violation of the Labor Standards Act, did not pay KRW 2,406,110, totaling KRW 2,406,110, and KRW 2,406, and 110, as of December 201, 201, G’s wage amounting to KRW 106,110, working in the above workplace from April 1, 201 to February 6, 201 at the above workplace, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without any agreement between the parties on extension of the payment
2. Determination
A. The violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits is a crime falling under Article 44 subparagraph 1 or Article 9 of the same Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under the proviso to the same Article. According to the records, it can be acknowledged that the employee D, E, or F submitted a written withdrawal of a petition to the effect that he/she does not want criminal punishment against the defendant on February 18, 2013, after the public prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, this part of the public prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
B. The violation of the Labor Standards Act is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act. According to the records, G does not want criminal punishment against the Defendant on February 18, 2013, where the public prosecution of this case was instituted by G.