beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A is the chief executive officer of the Asia-Pacific Business Co., Ltd., and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of job offering, job seeking, etc. via the Internet.
Defendant
A From the early August 201, the Defendant entered into an employment entrustment contract with “G Co., Ltd.,” and “G Co., Ltd.,” in Seoul Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F 201 from August 201 to October 201, the Defendant placed an employment advertisement as if the Defendant recruited an employee of “G Co., Ltd.,” engaging in counseling services with 114 of the SK Telecom, on dispatch, but on the Internet site (H), recruited 114 counselors of the SK Telecom as permanent employees or contractual employees.
After all, the Defendant advertised false job placement as a person engaged in job placement services.
B. Defendant B Co., Ltd., at the time, place, and Defendant A, an employee of the Defendant, advertised false job offer advertisements as described in paragraph (1) with respect to the Defendant’s business.
2. According to Articles 47 subparag. 6 and 34(1) of the Employment Security Act, where a person engaged in job placement services, recruitment of workers, or labor supply business as prescribed under Article 18, etc. of the Employment Security Act places a false job offer advertisement, or presents false job offer terms and conditions, such person shall be punished. Thus, if an employee employed by a subordinate of a corporation places a false job offer advertisement or presents false job offer terms and conditions as above, it cannot be deemed that the above superior did not engage in any act prescribed under the above Act, unless the above superior places a false job offer advertisement or presents false job offer conditions or presents false job offer conditions. Even if the above superior participated in job offer advertisements or false job offer conditions for his/her subordinate, it shall not be punished as an offender under the above Act.
Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6256 Decided March 10, 201 (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do6256).