Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim C is acquitted. Of the facts charged in the instant case.

The acquittal portion

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the actual manager of G Co., Ltd. who ordinarily employs ten or more workers in Gwangju City and runs a construction business, etc.

The Defendant did not pay 1,020,000 won to the victim C who retired while working at the construction site in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H from June 11, 2015 to June 29 of the same month as wages of 1,020,000 to the victim C within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement with the victim on the extension of the payment deadline.

2. The evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem the Defendant as an employer against the victim C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as an actual manager of G, worked at the construction site of the I8th floor located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H from April 9, 2015 to May 7, 2015, and worked for the victim D with wages of KRW 1,840,000, and wages of KRW 2,080,000 for the victim E who retired from office from April 9, 2015 to May 7, 2015, did not pay them to the victims within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement with the victims regarding the extension of the due date.

2. One copy of the board is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the express will of the victim under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and according to each statement of withdrawal of each petition filed in the trial records, the victim D and E have withdrawn their wish to punish the defendant on or around June 7, 2016, which is the date the public prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, this part of the public prosecution is dismissed under Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.