A. The employee D already expressed his/her intention that he/she would not be punished against the Defendant when the employee D already expressed his/her intention that he/she would not be punished. The Defendant already paid the unpaid wages to D prior to the instant indictment, and the expression of intention that he/she would not be punished was established by paying all the above wages to D before the instant indictment, and the accusation submitted again by D is invalid pursuant to Article 232(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is illegal as being instituted despite the victim's expression of non-existence of punishment, and the judgment dismissing the public prosecution should be sentenced pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. Workers D who asserted that the Defendant had no intention to pay wages had been classified as a low-quality supervisor according to various objective evaluation indexes, and the reduction of annual salary was determined. Since D impliedly consented thereto, there was no intention to pay wages to the Defendant.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected all of its decisions in detail.

A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

In particular, in order to recognize that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish or withdraws his/her wishing to punish a person, the crime of non-violation of will must be expressed in a way that is obvious and reliable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004; 2012Do3166, Sept. 13, 2012). If the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish a person, the court shall determine whether the conditions are fulfilled.