All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the representative director of the (ju) CC located at the time of harmony, employs five full-time workers and engages in the manufacturing of metal products.

Where an employee dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money and valuables within 14 days from the date of occurrence of the cause for such payment, but the Defendant did not pay 30,625,156 won, including the total sum of 7,289,440 won of the wages of the employee D employed from May 6, 2015 to October 27, 2016 at the said workplace within 14 days from the date of each retirement without extending the due date under an agreement between the parties concerned.

If an employee retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within 14 days from the date on which the reason for such payment occurred, but the Defendant did not pay the total amount of KRW 9,360,976 of the retirement allowance of two workers as stated in the attached Form, including the above D retirement allowance of KRW 3,951,988, within 14 days from the date of each retirement without any extension of the due date by an agreement between the parties concerned.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the fact that wages are unpaid is an offense falling under Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and the fact that retirement allowances are unpaid is an offense falling under Article 44 subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Workers’ Retirement Benefits Guarantee Act.

According to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, each of the above crimes cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent or against the victim’s explicit intent.

In this regard, according to the employee's withdrawal statement submitted on January 17, 2017 and January 25, 2017, it can be seen that the above employee's expression of non-original intent to punish the above employee.

Therefore, all of the public prosecutions of this case are dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.