All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, operates a real estate rental company using 14 regular workers in trade name.

The Defendant in violation of the Labor Standards Act did not pay KRW 2,086,050, total amount of wages of KRW 991,000 for December 2, 2011 to H, who was employed by the said company from July 4, 201 to September 30, 201, and KRW 1,095,050 for September 201, and KRW 2,086,050 for wages of KRW 1,095,050 for September 201 without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

In addition, the Defendant did not pay the total amount of KRW 94,45,876 to five workers within 14 days from the date of occurrence of the cause without an agreement between the parties on extension of the due date, as stated in the attached list of crimes (Article 36 related to the Labor Standards Act).

B. The Defendant in violation of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act did not pay KRW 1,341,423 of the retirement allowances of retired workers H while serving in the said company from July 4, 201 to October 1, 2012, within 14 days from the date on which the relevant cause occurred, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date.

In addition, the Defendant did not pay the total amount of KRW 8,191,392 to three workers as stated in the attached list of crimes (related to Article 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act) within 14 days from the date of occurrence of the cause without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. We examine the judgment. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act. Under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, a public prosecution cannot be instituted against the victim’s express intent under the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. According to the written withdrawal of each written complaint, the victim I, J. 16 Oct. 16, 2013, which