However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a user who works as the representative of C Co., Ltd. located in the 12th floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and has operated software development business using 50 full-time workers.

The Defendant, when working for the foregoing company from June 16, 2014 to October 31, 2017 and retired as an employee, did not pay 45,35,086 won in total for 10 retired workers within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on extension of the due date between the parties, or did not pay 45,35,086 won in total as stated in the attached crime list, including 6,673,326 won in D retirement pay, which is the date of payment agreed between the parties. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28920, May 30, 2018>

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each complaint, each statement of payment;

1. Application of each relevant statute;

1. Article 44 Subparag. 1 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits and Articles 44 and 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits [Selection of Imprisonment] [Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act may be revoked before the judgment of the court of first instance, but once the person who has withdrawn the complaint has failed to file a new complaint. This legal doctrine likewise applies to withdrawal of declaration of intent wishing to punish in a case that cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1691, Apr. 9, 2015). In addition, in order to recognize that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish or withdrawn his/her wishing to punish for the crime of non-violation of intention, the victim shall be expressed in a way that the victim is obvious and reliable (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1809, Jun. 15, 201).