logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.07.24 2015노1384
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the premise that there was no agreement between the Defendant and C on the reduction of 10% of wages, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the suspended or suspended sentence: the fine of KRW 500,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to this part of the charges of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on this ground, on the following grounds: (a) this part of the charges was premised on the premise that C’s wage was KRW 2.9 million per month; (b) by mutual agreement between C and the Defendant Company’s reduction of 10% of the wage due to financial deterioration, reduced C’s wage was KRW 2.66 million per month; and (c) otherwise, it was insufficient to deem C’

On January 12, 2013, the lower court’s judgment is closely examined in comparison with the evidence records, and in addition, on January 12, 2013, the Defendant Company and its executives and employees agreed to change the amount of retirement allowances to the annual salary by adding up the amount of retirement allowances on February 28, 2013, the employees who did not sign the agreement to automatically retire. All employees, other than C and I, signed the agreement, and I retired from the Defendant Company. However, in addition to the fact that C did not withdraw at the date of the above withdrawal and received 260,000 won per month reduced by 10% without withdrawing from the Defendant Company, it appears that the Defendant Company and C agreed to reduce the monthly salary by 10% for eight months.

Even if the defendant did not pay 10% of the wages and retirement allowances to the defendant, it can be considered that at least such an agreement had been reached.

arrow