근로기준법위반등
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the Defendant, as the C representative located in Busan City, who ordinarily employs two workers and operates the business of manufacturing and selling landscaping facilities.
The Defendant worked in the foregoing workplace from November 7, 201 to November 30, 2012, and did not pay KRW 1,863,070 of retired workers D’s wages in October 201, and KRW 3,726,140 of wages in November 2012 and KRW 1,958,373 of retirement allowances in November 201 within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment deadline.
2. We examine the judgment. The case is a case in which the victim cannot institute a prosecution against the victim's explicit intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits. According to the records of this case, the employee D submitted a written withdrawal of a complaint against the defendant to the court on February 24, 2015, which was after the prosecution of this case, on February 24, 2015. Thus, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it