The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the actual management owner of “D” located in Gyeongbuk-gun C, who runs a manufacturing business (boiler) with three regular workers.

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

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working in the foregoing workplace from July 15, 2013 to November 23, 2014.

The retirement E's total wage of KRW 4,820,00,000, such as wage of KRW 400,000 in August 2014, was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without any 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 may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is working in the above workplace as described in the preceding paragraph.

The retired E's retirement pay of 3,984,870 won was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are those falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the employee’s explicit intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

However, according to the application for non-prosecution of punishment, E may recognize the fact that he expressed his wish not to punish the defendant on September 18, 2015, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.