The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, and forty hours of community service order) of the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a complaint may be withdrawn before the pronouncement of a judgment in the first instance. However, a person who has withdrawn a complaint once so shall not file a new complaint.

This legal principle applies likewise to the withdrawal of expression of intent for punishment in a case which cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victim.

Therefore, in order to recognize that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish a person in a crime of non-violation of intention, the victim’s true intent should be expressed in a way that enables clear and trustable. However, even if such intent is explicitly expressed after the withdrawal of the expression of intent and expressed his/her wish to punish again, the perpetrator cannot be punished.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10183 Decided January 15, 2009, etc.). B.

According to the records of this case, the following facts are revealed: (a) employee D submitted a written petition to the Central Local Labor Agency on February 20, 2012 with the same content as the facts charged in this case, to the effect that “the Defendant delayed payment of wages”; (b) thereafter D submitted a written petition to the labor inspector on May 29, 2012 to the effect that “the case to be withdrawn is terminated because it was originally agreed upon,” and that “the case to be terminated if the withdrawal was made by mutual agreement with the labor inspector” was “the case to be terminated” at the telephone with the labor inspector; (c) the fact that the instant petition case was terminated on May 30, 2012 according to the above intention; and (d) However, D had not paid the amount promised by the Defendant at time, and thus, D again filed a petition with the labor inspector around July 2013 and led to the prosecution of this case.

C. The crime under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which was prosecuted in the instant case, is defined in Article 109 of the same Act.