The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Violation of Acts and subordinate statutes: (a) the prosecution procedure of the prosecutor is unlawful as the case is based on the inventory of victimized workers E in violation of Article 232(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. Of the sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. (1) According to Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a complaint may be withdrawn before the pronouncement of a judgment in the first instance. However, a person who once withdraws a complaint shall not file another complaint.

This legal principle applies likewise to the withdrawal of expression of intent for punishment in a case which cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victim.

Therefore, in order to recognize that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish a person in a crime of non-violation of intention, the victim’s true intent should be expressed in a way that enables clear and trustable. However, even if such intent is explicitly expressed after the withdrawal of the expression of intent and expressed his/her wish to punish again, the perpetrator cannot be punished.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10183, Jan. 15, 2009). Moreover, the absence of the expression of intent not to punish a person subject to punishment is a passive litigation condition, and the absence of such expression is an ex officio investigation, and even if the party did not assert it, the court should ex officio investigate and determine it.

(2) The summary of the facts charged in this case is that “the Defendant’s retirement allowance of KRW 25,421,370, which he/she worked for the Defendant from March 2, 1995 to September 17, 2013, did not pay within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on extension of the payment date” (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1691, Apr. 9, 2015). The lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case.

However, at the lower court on October 12, 2013, the victimized Workers E filed a petition with the Seoul Northern District Office on the ground that he/she did not pay retirement allowances.