The guilty part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of 1 year and April and fine of 500,000.

1. Of the instant facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court dismissed the prosecution against the Defendant as to the violation of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits to Workers D and the violation of the Labor Standards Act of 2016 Go-dan 3167, and sentenced the Defendant guilty of the remainder of the facts charged. The Prosecutor appealed against the Defendant on the ground of unfair sentencing. Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower court’s dismissal of the prosecution against the Defendant was separate and finalized on the ground that the Defendant and the Prosecutor did not appeal all of the appeals, and thus, the dismissal of the prosecution was excluded from this Court’s judgment.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the defendant.

2. The lower court’s sentence (one year and four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and fine of 50,000) against the Defendant on the summary of the prosecutor’s appeal grounds is unreasonable because it is too unfasible.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal. Of the facts charged in the instant case, we examine the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Labor Standards Act for Workers T, V, Z, AAB, AC, AD, AD, AE, AF, AF, AH, AH, AI, and E (excluding the violation of the Labor Standards Act of 2016 highest group 3167) and the violation of the Labor Standards Act for Workers E, as seen earlier. As such, the judgment of the court below was already dismissed and finalized.

A public prosecution may not be instituted against the victim’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 109(1) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Article 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

In this regard, according to the records of the court below's trial, the above workers can be recognized as having submitted a statement of withdrawal of complaint that they do not want punishment of the defendant to the court below on November 1, 2016, which is after the indictment of this case. Thus, the court below's decision is Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure