All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the E representative director of the Si/Gu-U.S.-si Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., who has been engaged in the manufacturing business by ordinarily employing more than one hundred workers.

(a) When a worker dies or retires, an employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay him/her wages, compensations, or other money or valuables within 14 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 did not pay 25,846,607 won in total, which was incurred from October 10, 201 to May 5, 2014 by an employee F, who retired from office on May 5, 2014, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Form, within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of the payment deadline between the parties, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

(b) An employer who violates the guarantee of retirement benefits of an employee shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days after the ground for such payment occurred, in cases where the employee retires;

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay 2,716,654 won of F's retirement allowance from October 10, 201 at the same place of business on May 5, 201, without an agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties, within 14 days from the date of retirement.

2. The facts charged of the instant case are the crimes 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 victim’s explicit intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. According to the records of the instant case, the employee F, after the institution of the instant indictment, intended to prosecute the Defendant on January 19, 2016.