A. The Defendant in violation of the Labor Standards Act is the representative director of the agricultural company C& corporation located in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Dong-gu, and is the employer who ordinarily employs 12 workers and operates the bread manufacturing business. In the event a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within 14 days from the time when the cause for such payment occurred, but the Defendant is working at the said workplace from January 21, 2013 to May 31, 2014.

A total of 26,434,465 won, including 1,479,105 won for retired workers D, and 3,179,105 won for wage 1,70,000 on May 2014, 2014, including 26,434,465 won, as shown in the list of crimes against 20 retired workers, were not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on extension of the due date between the parties concerned.

B. An employer who violates the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall, where a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within 14 days from the time when the cause for such payment occurred, but the defendant shall work at the same workplace from January 21, 2013 to May 31, 2014.

A retirement allowance of 2,259,916 won for retired workers D was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. We examine the judgment. The crime falls under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and cannot be prosecuted against each victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. According to the records, each victim listed in the attached list, such as D, expressed his/her intent not to punish the Defendant from August 2014 to January 2015, each of the victims mentioned in the attached list, including D, expressed his/her wish to punish the Defendant. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.