Therefore, since the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below against which the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal is finalized, it is limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the materials submitted by the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, since workers G, H (H and South Africa) did not want punishment against the Defendant, the lower court should have rendered a judgment dismissing this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The crime stipulated in Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which was prosecuted against the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, is an offense of non-prosecution which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act.

Meanwhile, inasmuch as the withdrawal of an expression of intent to revoke a complaint or to punish is a legal act against an investigation agency or a court, it shall be done with respect to an investigation agency in charge of a case of a complaint and the court in charge of the lawsuit after the institution of a public prosecution (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do17264, Feb. 23, 2012, etc.). Moreover, in a crime of non-violation of an intention, an injured person expressed his/her wish

In order to be recognized, the victim’s true intent should be expressed in a way that is clear and reliable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5737, Oct. 25, 2007). The record reveals that workers G and H delayed payment of wages against the Defendant around June 2014.