The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant, as the representative of the Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. in Bupyeong-si B, is an employer who runs an electronic safety machine manufacturing business using four full-time workers.

When a worker retires, an employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

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

Nevertheless, the defendant is working from October 11, 2010 to November 12, 2018 at the above workplace.

D's wages of KRW 3,350,00 on April 2018, as well as KRW 67,490,000 on the total wages of three retired workers, as described in the attached list of crimes, were not paid within 14 days from the date on which the cause for payment occurred without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

(b) An employer in violation of 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

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

Nevertheless, the defendant is working from October 11, 2010 to November 12, 2018 at the above workplace.

The retirement allowance of retired D, including 29,284,656 won, did not pay 50,255,907 won in total for three retired workers within 14 days from the date of occurrence of the reasons for payment without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date, as described in the attached list of crimes.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are those 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, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

However, the records of this case are examined.