The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant, as the C representative in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, is an employer who runs food business using ten full-time workers.

(a) An employer violating the Labor Standards Act shall, if a worker retires, pay all money and valuables, such as wages, within 14 days from the date of such retirement, unless the employer has agreed on the extension of the payment period between the parties concerned;

Provided, That the payment date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay the wages of KRW 33,237,880 from May 5, 201 to December 31, 2016 at the above workplace without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date, which is the date of the cause for payment, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment.

(b) An employer who violates a guarantee of retirement benefits of an employee shall, if the employee retires, pay the retirement allowance within 14 days after the grounds for such payment occurred;

Provided, That the payment date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 9,700,320 of D retirement pay, which was retired from the said workplace from March 5, 2011 to December 31, 2016, within 14 days from the date on which the cause for payment occurred, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

2. Each of the facts charged in the instant case is an offense against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.

On September 29, 2017, after the institution of the instant indictment, the victim submitted a written withdrawal of the complaint containing the intent of the Defendant not to punish the Defendant.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.