[Defendant]
[Appellant] Public Prosecutor
[Court Below]
Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 92No767 rendered on April 17, 1992
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The obligation to pay retirement allowances, etc. within the prescribed period under Article 109 and Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) is legislated for the purpose of promoting the stability of workers' livelihood by compelling employers to pay retirement allowances to workers without fail within the prescribed period. Therefore, in a case where it is recognized that, despite the employer having made his best efforts to pay the retirement allowance, there existed unavoidable circumstances such that it was utterly impossible to pay the retirement allowance within the payment deadline due to financial difficulties resulting from poor management, criminal liability for the delayed payment of retirement allowance as described above cannot be imposed (see this Court's Decision 87Do2098 rendered on May 10, 1988).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, comprehensively considering the evidence it adopted, found the following facts: after the Defendant was appointed on September 19, 1990 by the Seoul Civil District Court as the provisional administrator of B Co., Ltd., he made efforts toward the company's rehabilitation, including personnel reductions and downsizing of operations, without any delay in the payment of wages or retirement allowances; however, when Non-Indicted C, the representative director of the above company, was indicted and detained on charges including forgery of securities, the unrest among business partners and company employees intensified further; and on November 15, 1990, the said court dismissed the application for commencement of the company reorganization procedure against the above company on the ground that there was no possibility of rehabilitation, after which the management of the company became uncontrollable, and eventually, from 1991 onward, it became impossible to pay the retirement allowances of the rapidly increasing number of retiring employees. Based on the above findings of fact, the court below held that the Defendant's failure to pay retirement allowances within the deadline was due to unavoidable circumstances, such as the deterioration of the financial situation following the detention of the representative director of the above company at the time and the fact that a large number of employees retired within a short period, making it utterly impossible to pay the retirement allowances within the deadline; therefore, the Defendant could not be held criminally liable for the delayed payment of retirement allowances, and accordingly rendered a verdict of not guilty to the Defendant. Upon examination in light of the record, the above findings and determination of the court below are in accordance with the legal principles set forth above and are justified, and there is no illegality therein, as argued in the grounds of appeal, of having failed to properly conduct the deliberation, thereby violating the rules of evidence and erroneously finding the facts, or of having misunderstood the legal principles under Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act. The argument is without merit.
The precedent of this Court relied upon in the grounds of appeal concerns a case with different facts and is not appropriate to be adopted as precedent for this case.
Therefore, the opinions of the participating Justices being unanimous in dismissing the appeal, it is decided as ordered in the Order.
Justice Bae Man-woon (Presiding Justice), Choi Jae-ho, Kim Seok-su, Choi Jong-young (Presiding Judge for Deliberation)