The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant, at the time of the charge, is a business owner of C architect office who employs three full-time workers in B and operates a architectural design business.

The Defendant in violation of the Labor Standards Act works as a design clerk from December 5, 2011 to July 31, 2017 at the above workplace.

The retired D's wages of KRW 19,150,00,00, and the design office shall work from March 1, 2012 to June 30, 2017.

Retired E’s wages of KRW 5,900,000, and from July 7, 2014 to June 25, 2018, shall serve as design office workers.

Without agreement on the extension of the due date for payment between the parties, the retired F's wages of KRW 36,250,000 were not paid to three workers, including KRW 11,200,000, respectively, within fourteen days from the date of retirement.

B. The Defendant who violated the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act is serving as a design clerk from December 5, 201 to July 31, 2017 at the above workplace.

A retired D's retirement pay of KRW 19,150,00,000, from March 1, 2012 to June 30, 2017, shall serve as a design agent.

The retired E's retirement pay 13,39,736 won, and the service as a design agent from July 7, 2014 to June 25, 2018.

The retirement allowance of the retired FF was not paid to three workers, including 13,339,736 won, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment.

2. The instant case is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017; hereinafter the same) or Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the former Labor Standards Act or the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

On January 18, 2019, after the institution of the instant prosecution, the victims submitted to the Defendant a written agreement containing the purport of “not wanting to be punished against the Defendant.”

In accordance with Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, this case.