All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

1. The Defendant, as the representative of Co., Ltd. C in Changwon-si, Changwon-si B, is an employer who employs two full-time workers and operates a proxy driving service business.

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

Provided, That the date of payment may be extended by an agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 700,000 as wages of April 2015, which was worked as telephone counselor from October 10, 2013 to April 21, 2015 at the same place of business, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the relevant cause for payment, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

(b) An employer who violates the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall, in case where a worker retires, 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 an agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW D retirement allowance of KRW 2,629,086, who worked as a telephone counselor from October 10, 2013 to April 21, 2015 at the same place of business, 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. The above facts charged are the crimes falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, or 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 or the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

According to the records, the victim D could have withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on September 18, 2015, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.