logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2017.08.23 2017고단1345
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is an employer who runs a household wholesale and retail business using seven full-time workers as a real manager of Co., Ltd. C in Ansan-si.

(a) An employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall, if a worker retires, pay all money or valuables, such as wages, within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred;

Nevertheless, the Defendant had worked from July 1, 2015 to March 31, 2017 at the said workplace and had not paid 16,402,640 won, including the total sum of 4,766,970 won of D wages of retired workers, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties concerned, as stated in the attached Table, including the details of delay in arrears.

(b) An employer who violates the guarantee of retirement benefits of an employee shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the ground for such payment occurred, in cases where the employee retires;

Nevertheless, the defendant employed from July 1, 2015 to March 31, 2017 at the above workplace and did not pay 14,013,046 won in total, including 4,602,740 won for retirement allowances of retired workers D, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties concerned, as stated in the attached Form.

Accordingly, the Defendant did not pay 30,415,686 won to workers in total.

2. Determination

(a) Crimes of non-violation of intention: Article 109 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits of respective workers;

B. Around August 16, 2017 and around August 17, 2017, the victimized workers, after the instant indictment, expressed their intention not to be punished against the Defendant.

Dismissal of public prosecution: It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act or more.

arrow