The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is a user who employs 20 full-time workers as the representative director of D Co., Ltd., which is located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (C) No. 1408 (C) and operates software research and development business.

The Defendant, while working in the foregoing workplace from January 1, 201 to April 17, 2012, retired from office, did not pay KRW 2,26,905 in total, including KRW 450,580 in the wage balance in March 2012, and KRW 1,816,325 in April 201, and KRW 2,266,905 in the wage in April 201, and KRW 30,373,721 in total, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, within 14 days from each retirement date on which the cause for the payment occurred, without agreement between the parties to extend the due date.

B. The Defendant, in the foregoing workplace from January 1, 201 to April 17, 2012, did not pay KRW 22,791,449 in the aggregate of seven employees, as shown in the separate crime list, as well as KRW 1,714,728 in the E’s balance of retirement pay retired from office, within 14 days from the date of each retirement, which is the date on which the cause for the payment occurred, without agreement between the parties to the extension of the due date.

2. Of the facts charged above, each of the charges is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the respective Labor Standards Act. Each of the charges is an offense falling under Articles 31 and 9 of the former Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 25, 201) and is not prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the proviso to Article 44 of the current Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 25, 2011).

(The former Act did not have any provision of anti-pact but newly established a provision of anti-pact punishment in the new Act. This provision applies to the presumption of prosecution amendment in favor of the defendant. However, according to the statement of the victims' withdrawal of the petition, the above provision is applied.