The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On September 25, 2015, the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendant agreed on workers E and unpaid wages and retirement allowances; and (b) submitted such agreement to the investigative agency prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment; (c) the instant public prosecution ought to be dismissed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In order to recognize that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish or withdraws his/her wishing to punish in the crime of non-violation of punishment, such expression must be expressed in such a way that the victim’s true will is apparent and reliable;

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1809, Jun. 15, 2001).

In light of the above legal principles, this case returned to the investigative agency, and the court below and the trial court lawfully adopted and examined the above agreement, along with the purport that "the remaining 1.5 million won of the total monthly wage was received in cash and it is confirmed that there is no civil or criminal objection" was submitted to the investigative agency on September 25, 2015, where the name and resident registration number of the worker E were entered. The name of "E" and resident number stated in the above agreement are deemed to have been made by E (the response to the request for written appraisal by the appraiserF on August 27, 2020), but on the other hand, the above agreement was not submitted to the investigative agency, and the defendant was not the defendant, and the "15 million won of the above agreement" from "1.5 million won" to "15 million won of the above written agreement was not made later and the appraiser's statement was not made by the court at the time of the first instance court's request for appraisal (the statement by the appraiser on September 27, 2012).

On the other hand, the above agreement alone is before the judgment of the court below is rendered.