The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below's decision to dismiss a public prosecution in this case should be rendered, as long as the victims expressed their intent not to be punished prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below as they did not want to be punished against the victim's explicit intent.

However, the court below rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In fact, the Defendant was not the owner of the instant marina business, and thus, was not the employer of the employee.

Even so, the lower court convicted the Defendant, which in so determining, erred by misapprehending the facts.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (700,000 won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 232(3) and Article 232(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, in a case in which a crime cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent, the withdrawal of a wish to punish or the expression of intent not to punish may be made until the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do7948, Jul. 27, 2016). Thus, even if an employee expresses his/her intention not to punish after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, it cannot be effective under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do17264, Feb. 23, 2012). Thus, the withdrawal of a wish to cancel or punish a complaint is a legal act against an investigation agency or the court.