The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case since E, a successor as the wife of the worker network D, expressed his wish not to punish the defendant after the indictment of this case was instituted. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The offense of violation of Article 44 Subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for the determined workers is an offense of non-prosecution for which a public prosecution cannot be instituted against the express will of the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6058, Nov. 19, 2009). The expression of intent by the victim cannot be made solely by the victim with mental capacity (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6058, Nov. 19, 2009). After the victim died, his/her heir cannot express his/her intention of non-prosecution for punishment on behalf of the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2680, May 27, 2010). According to the records, E, who is inherited as his/her wife on November 16, 2016 and his/her wife, is recognized that the victim did not express his/her wish to punish the Defendant on March 16, 2018.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.