Judicial Application Of The Crime On The Refusal To Pay Labor Remuneration

Refuses to pay the payment for labor crime’s stipulation, is worker’s gospel. It has manifested our country human rights protection consciousness further enhancement, also has provided the side safeguard for market economy’s health movement. The criminal prosecution for refusing to pay labor remuneration, needs to follow the law stipulation strictly, but because of the difference between the administrative law and the criminal law about praescriptio stipulation, it will possibly cause that the the expansion of this crime’s criminal prosecution process faces with some difficulties. And it even will cause the authority corruption. In order to avoid this difficult position, we need to advance this institutional constraints, make up the blank of the interface between law, and prevent the authority corruption multiplying. This is the requirements of the Criminal integration.At the same time, refuses to pay the payment for labor crime immediately affect Employer’s production and operating activities, it causes the enterprise and worker’s tension, and may hinder the smooth development of economic activities, even results the development of social conflict. Therefore the prosecution of this crime, appears quite important. Solving the Employer and worker’s dispute thoroughly and investigating that criminal’s corresponding responsibility is the best method of resumeing the economic activity’s health movement as well as the repairing of social order. And to achieve this, it needs to do the concrete analysis in the prosecution program, in different stages of the prosecution case according to progress to the parties to take different encourage measures, even may make the judicial concessions in the reasonable scope, enables litigant both sides to be willing to accept investigates institution’s decision and the referee, thus realizes smoothly to the case, fast, the fair solution. In the examination prosecution link, the Public Prosecution should pay attention to making the decision:relative does not sue. Certainly when the Public Prosecution plans to make this kind of decision, it must pay attention to listen to litigant’s suggestions, and enables them to have the communication opportunity, so that victim’s loss can be made up, eliminates their negative mood, and makes the accused person to understand this decision’s rationality, in order to ensure the stability and effectiveness of the decision:relative not to prosecute. The trial stage, needs to pay attention to the application of simple procedure and its impact on sentencing. And when both sides achieve conciliatory voluntarily and legally, the Court should have wide slow change sentencing consideration, so that the defendant positive, actively make up for the victim loss, make the effect of pursuit realized as soon as possible commissioner the law needs to pursue the effect realizes as soon as possible. When parties make reconciliation at the trial stage, the Court shall give the defendant the referee of exoneration and pardon, so as to achieve equal treatment in order to achieve the substance of fair. Because defendant reached a settlement in the prosecution phase of relatively non-prosecution, is equivalent to exoneration pardon. Those defendants likely to be sentenced more than three years in prison, caused greater harm by their behavior on social. But there are no discretion of punishment plot for their legal-relief Sentencing, obviously it does not conducive to guide them to take the initiative to repair the damage and restore social order, even may cause more waste of judicial resources. To avoid this result, we should set the behavior that the defendant takes the initiative to compensation payments and to obtain the understanding of victims to a Statutory-relief Sentencing plot.