2. According to Article 232(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, cancellation of complaints filed in relation to a crime subject to victim's complaint and withdrawal of wishing to punish a person for a crime subject to victim's complaint can be made only before the judgment of the first instance is rendered.

Therefore, in a case where a complaint is revoked or a declaration of wishing to punish is withdrawn after a judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, it cannot be tried to dismiss the public prosecution under Article 327 subparagraphs 5 through 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, the withdrawal of the declaration of intent to revoke or punish a complaint is a legal act against the investigation agency or the court, so it should be done with the investigation agency in charge of the case of complaint and the court of the lawsuit after the prosecution.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, even if a substitute payment was received by AP, etc. from the Ministry of Employment and Labor as asserted by the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant expressed his/her intent not to punish the Defendant. Furthermore, even if AP, etc. submitted a written withdrawal of a petition to the effect that he/she would not want punishment against the Defendant in the process of filing the said substitute payment, even if the written withdrawal of the said petition is submitted by AP, etc., it shall be submitted before the lower court’s decision that the written withdrawal of the petition is instituted, but has the effect of revoking the petition and withdrawing the intention to punish the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion on a different premise shall not be accepted.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.