1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The pronouncement of sentence against Defendant A shall be suspended;

3. Prosecution against Defendant B

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts ① advance payment of wages to the instant workers in M and N, the Defendants cannot be punished for violation of the Labor Standards Act because civil issues arise between the Defendants and human resources suppliers, and ② even if the fact that the Defendants were found to have paid wages to workers, since the 1,O, and 86 workers filed a complaint prior to the pronouncement of the first instance judgment, the dismissal of prosecution should be pronounced.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The facts charged in the instant case regarding Defendant B constitute Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and thus cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act.

However, according to the records, I andO employees and 86 employees submitted a written withdrawal of complaint to the lower court on June 14, 2013, which was prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment (30-36 pages of the trial record).

Therefore, this case shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as to the existence or absence of punishment for employees I, O, and 86, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for dismissing prosecution in violation of the Labor Standards Act, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

3. Judgment on Defendant A

A. (1) According to the records on the assertion of mistake of facts, the withdrawal of a written complaint by the Defendant B on June 14, 2013, which was prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below, may be recognized by the court below (30-36 pages of the trial record). However, the principle of non-payment of the complaint is applicable to the offense subject to a complaint, and is not applicable to the offense of non-prosecution of the intention. Thus, the Supreme Court Decision 194.