The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in the manufacturing business of crushing and treating minerals using 11 full-time workers in C Co., Ltd. located in Chungcheongnamyang-gun B.

(a) An employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall, if a worker retires, pay all money and valuables, such as wages, within 14 days from the date of retirement, unless the employer has agreed on the extension of the date;

Nevertheless, the Defendant provided the said stock company with labor from August 4, 2014 to September 30, 2015, and the retired employee D’s wages of KRW 3,486,420 on May 2015, 2015, and the amount of wages of KRW 3,343,210 on July 7, 2015, the amount of wages of KRW 3,200,000 on August 4, 2015, and the amount of wages of KRW 16,716,050 on September 3, 2015, did not be paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the payment date between the parties.

(b) When a worker dies or retires, the employer who violates the guarantee of retirement benefits of the worker shall pay the worker a retirement allowance within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred, unless there exists an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date;

Nevertheless, the Defendant provided labor as stated in Paragraph 1 and did not pay KRW 3,681,92 of the retirement allowances of retired workers D within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the payment date between the parties.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case

1. (a) A. A. A. A is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act that cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent in accordance with Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act;

1. B. Paragraph (b) is a crime falling under subparagraph 1 of Article 44 and Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent under the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.

On May 2, 2016, the prosecution of this case, workers D do not want to be punished by the defendant.