The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The prosecutor of the grounds for appeal asserts that the penalty (six million won of a fine) declared by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. As to the existence of the expression of intention not to punish the Defendant, the Defendant’s counsel for ex officio determination of the existence of the expression of intention not to punish the Defendant in an investigative agency clearly stated that D, E, and F does not want the Defendant’s punishment, and accordingly, the labor inspector prepared and submitted a letter of revocation of the complaint along with the written complaint to the labor inspector, and thus the prosecution of this case should be dismissed. The absence of the expression of intention not to punish the Defendant is a matter of ex officio examination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9939, Dec. 10, 2009).

The crime of violating the Labor Standards Act due to the failure to pay wages and the crime of violating the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits due to the failure to pay retirement allowances is both the crime of failing to prosecute the victim against the explicit intent of the victim (Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act). The withdrawal of the wishing to punish in the crime of failing to punish the victim may be made before the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered (Article 232(3) and (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the expression of wishing to punish the victim shall be expressed in such a way that the victim is obvious and reliable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1150, 2010Do83 Decided November 11, 2010, etc.). According to the records, the following: (a) D, E, and F prepared and submitted a written complaint, a written complaint, and a written statement against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was not paid wages, etc. from the Defendant to the investigation agency; and (b) written and submitted by D as of July 14, 2014, stated the phrase “if there was no agreement on the date of payment and the amount of penalty for unpaid payment,” and unlike D, E, and F made the Defendant prior to the pronouncement of the first instance judgment.