The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is an employer who operates a private teaching institute with ten full-time workers as the representatives of Gyeyang-gu building B and C in the 8th floor of Incheon.

When a worker dies or retires, an employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Nevertheless, the Defendant provided labor as an English instructor from January 1, 2012 to August 31, 2014 at the said workplace, and did not pay KRW 20,500,000 in the aggregate of the unpaid wages from June 1, 2012 to July 2014 of the retired workers D, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

(b) An employer who violates the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall, in case where a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred; and

Nevertheless, the Defendant provided labor as an English instructor from January 1, 2012 to August 31, 2014 at the said workplace, and did not pay KRW 5,49,660 of retirement allowances of retired workers D within 14 days from the date of his/her retirement, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. Determination

A. In order to recognize that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish a person for a crime of non-violation of will, the victim’s genuine intent should be expressed in a way that is obvious and reliable. However, even if the victim expressed his/her wish to punish by withdrawing the said wish after one explicitly expressed his/her wish, this cannot be effective and thus cannot be punishable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10183, Jan. 15, 2009). In cases where the labor inspector expressed his/her wish not to punish a person for a real case on the grounds of wage arrears, even if the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish a person for a crime of non-violation of will, it may constitute “a

Supreme Court Decision 9 April 9, 2015