The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Company B, who runs cargo transport business using three full-time workers.

From January 209, to June 1, 2012, the Defendant, while working in the said workplace and retired from the said workplace, did not pay KRW 2,00,000 in February 2012, March 2012, KRW 2,000 in wages, KRW 2,00,000 in April 20, 2012, KRW 11,103,630 in total, including the amount of wages and retirement allowances for three retired workers, and KRW 11,103,630 in May 202, as indicated in the separate crime list, as stated in the separate crime list, as well as KRW 42,041,970 in total, wage and retirement allowances for three retired workers, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on extension.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the fact that wages are unpaid after retirement is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and constitutes a crime of non-compliance under Article 109(2) of the same Act.

In addition, the unpaid retirement allowance is a crime falling under Articles 31 and 9 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 26, 2012) and the above Act does not stipulate the above crime as a crime of non-prosecution, but the above crime was revised under the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 26, 2012 as an offense of non-prosecution. The Addenda does not include any transitional provision related to its application, but is more favorable to the defendant, so the amended Act should be applied pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4462, Oct. 28, 2005). The above crime also constitutes a crime of non-prosecution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

According to the records, it can be recognized that the victims have withdrawn their wish to punish the defendant after the institution of the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.