The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative director of the Co., Ltd., with B apartment-type factories 323, is an employer who runs the manufacturing industry by employing 40 full time workers.

Workers D are employed by C as an employee from April 9, 2004 to October 15, 2011.

The defendant retired from office, and the defendant did not pay 16,062,621 won of retirement allowance to him/her within 14 days from the date of his/her retirement without any agreement on extension of the due date with D.

The Defendant, including this, did not enter into an agreement on the extension of the due date, and did not pay the total of 32,247,251 of retirement allowances to two workers retired from C, a stock company, within 14 days from the date of each retirement.

2. The determination is an offense falling under Articles 31 and 9 of the former Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter “former Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act”), and each of the proviso of Article 44 of the former Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act (amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter “former Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act”) is a case in which a public prosecution against an employee’s explicit intent cannot be instituted under the said new Act that was amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 26, 2012; and accordingly, the said new Act favorable to the Defendant was newly established.

However, according to the written agreement dated April 15, 2013, the fact that workers D and E expressed their intent not to be punished against the defendant on April 15, 2013, which was following the institution of the instant prosecution.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.