The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Facts charged;

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

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant served as the team leader from June 9, 2014 to October 6, 2015, and retired from office as the head of the team at C’s 798,519 won = 5,210 won x 209 hours x 209 hours x 22 days x 30 won 483.50 won.

14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on the extension of the date.

(b) An employer who violates the guarantee of retirement benefits of an employee shall pay a retirement allowance within fourteen days after the ground for such payment occurred, in cases where the employee retires;

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay the total amount of KRW 3,356,804 from the date of retirement to October 6, 2015, including KRW 1,217,41, and KRW 1,411 of retirement allowances of retired workers C from the said workplace from June 9, 2014 to November 30, 2015, KRW 3,356,804, as well as KRW 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of the payment date between the parties concerned.

2. Determination: (a) Of the instant facts charged, the part regarding the violation of the Labor Standards Act among the instant facts charged is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act (Amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017); and (b) cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act; and (c) the part regarding the violation of the Labor Standards Act, which constitutes a crime falling under Article 44 subparag. 1 or 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, may not be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the proviso to Article 44 of the same Act.