The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the defendant as the representative director of Changwon-si, Changwon-si B, who runs the taxi transport business using 90 full-time workers.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay C’s annual allowance of 2010 and annual allowance of 250,515, annual allowance of 2011 and annual allowance of 261,902, annual bonus of 2012 and bonus of 534,046, within 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment, from August 5, 1997 to August 31, 2012.

(b) When a worker retires, the employer shall 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 did not pay KRW C’s retirement allowance of KRW 9,787,530, who served as a taxi engineer from August 5, 1997 to August 31, 2012 at the above workplace, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. We examine the judgment. The facts charged in this case are crimes 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 express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act. According to the written agreement bound in the public trial records, it is clear that the victim has withdrawn his wish to punish the defendant after the institution of the prosecution in this case. Thus, Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.