The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since 6 workers, excluding D, E, F, H, J, G, and I, excluding seven workers whose wages, etc. were not paid by the Defendant, already expressed their intention to not impose punishment against the Defendant before the lower judgment was rendered, the prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act should be dismissed.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 232(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, revocation of complaint and withdrawal of wishing to punish a person subject to victim's complaint may only be made before the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered.

Therefore, in a case where a complaint is revoked or a declaration of wishing to punish is withdrawn after a judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, it cannot be tried to dismiss the public prosecution under Article 327 subparagraphs 5 through 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, the withdrawal of the declaration of intent to revoke or punish a complaint is a legal act against the investigation agency or the court, so it should be done with the investigation agency in charge of the case of complaint and the court of the lawsuit after the prosecution.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do17264 Decided February 23, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do17264, Feb. 23, 2012). According to the records of the instant case, it is acknowledged that in the process of filing a substitute payment against the Defendant for a wage delay case, E as of December 22, 2014, as of December 22, 2014, includes the content of withdrawing the Defendant’s wish to punish the Defendant as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the violation of the Act on Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.

However, such as this.