The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who actually runs (ju)D in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and is an employer who hires eight full-time workers and conducts advertising agency business.

The Defendant in violation of the Labor Standards Act is working for the company from June 1, 2012 to March 25, 2014.

A retired E’s wage is KRW 1,826,740 for November 2013, KRW 2,357,360 for December 2013, KRW 2,084,950 for January 2014, KRW 2,051,890 for February 2, 2014, KRW 1,707,510 for March 2014, KRW 10,127,620 for other money and valuables, and KRW 9,170 for other money and valuables, and KRW 10,127,620 for November 1, 2013 to April 9, 2014.

Withdrawn F’s 216,820 won for January 2014, 1,397,850 won for February 2014, 1,397,850 won for March 2014, and 3,462,520 won for April 2014, without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment.

B. The Defendant who violated the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act is working for the pertinent company from June 1, 2012 to March 25, 2014.

The retirement allowance of retired E was not paid KRW 4,087,204 within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The judgment is a crime 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 express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. According to the records, it can be acknowledged that the above worker has withdrawn his/her expression of intent to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, the prosecution against the above part is dismissed under Article 327 subparag. 6 of the