The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is a representative of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, who ordinarily employs five workers and operates plastic products manufacturing business.

The Defendant is working in the foregoing workplace from May 1, 2013 to July 10, 2014.

D’s retirement (Korean name: 1,166,670 won for March 2014; 2,166,670 won for April 2014; 2,166,670 won for May 2014; 1,300 won for June 6, 2014; and 722,224 won for wages and retirement allowances for July 2014; 2,559,66 won for retirement allowances; and 10,081,90 won for total wages and retirement allowances for 10,00 won for each of two workers within 14 days from the date of payment without agreement between the parties to the due date.

2. The instant case is a case in which a public prosecution cannot be instituted against the victim’s explicit intent pursuant 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. According to the records of the instant case, following the institution of the instant public prosecution, a written agreement on March 23, 2015, stating that the E and F, a worker, wishing not to punish the Defendant, can be acknowledged. Thus, the instant public prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.