The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the Defendant, as the representative of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (State) 1314, who is engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale trade with 20 full-time workers.

1. The Defendant, while working in the foregoing workplace from March 19, 2012 to August 18, 2012, did not pay KRW 3,077,667 on the aggregate of the D wages, etc. of retired workers, including seven retired workers, including E, F, G, H, I, and J, and did not pay KRW 67,496,329 on the aggregate of the wages, etc. of retired workers within 14 days from the date of retirement, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The Defendant, while working in the foregoing workplace from April 11, 2011 to September 8, 2012, did not pay 18,142,810 won in total, including 2,873,800 won in retirement allowances of retired workers, including F, G, and H, within 14 days from the date of retirement, without any agreement between the parties on extension of the due date.

3. The Defendant worked in a L store located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government in the said place of business from December 26, 201 to August 10, 2012, and was retired from the said place of business, and did not pay 1,103,000 won for June 201, 201, the amount of wages of 1,703,000 won for July 201, and wages of 384,550 won for August 2012, including 3,190,50 won for total wages of 10,203,804 won for retirement workers, such as N,O, and P, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

2. The above facts charged against the board cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under the proviso of Article 109 (2) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 44 (1) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits. According to the records, the fact that the damaged worker withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant to the court after the prosecution of this case can be acknowledged. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.