근로자퇴직급여보장법위반
All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative director of C of a stock company in E in E in Einsung, who is engaged in logistics warehousing management business using ten full-time workers.
The Defendant served from October 18, 2010 to November 30, 2012 with the victim’s retirement pay of 4,037,160 won, 3,630 won, 4,023,630 won, 4,023,630 won, 630 won, 4,039,310 won, 310 won, and 3,8,600 won, 60 won, and 14,000 days, from October 20, 2010 to November 30, 2012, and did not pay the victim’s retirement pay to the victim’s employee who retired while serving for the period from October 18, 2010 to November 30, 2012 without agreement on the extension of the payment date. < Amended by Act No. 9973, Oct. 3, 2016; Act No. 9977, Oct. 6, 2010>
2. The judgment is a crime falling under Article 44 subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the intent expressed by the victim under the proviso to Article 44 of the same Act. According to each written withdrawal of the appeal submitted by the defendant on March 14, 2014, it is recognized that the above victims have withdrawn their intent to punish the defendant. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.