The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a business owner who ordinarily employs 7 workers as the representative of C in the Haak-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Haak-gun and runs a manufacturing business.

1. When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and 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 KRW 16,635,00,00 in total, as stated in the details of personal delayed payment, including the amount of KRW 2,400,00,00, paid for each individual’s wages, from May 2, 2015 to September 12, 2016, and from October 5, 2016 to October 7, 2016, as well as the amount of KRW 16,635,00, which is the date on which the cause for payment occurred, within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date on which the cause for payment occurred.

2. An employer shall, if a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred;

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 3,004,698 of D's retirement allowances from May 2, 2015 to September 12, 2016 at the same place of business without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline, within 14 days from the date of the retirement, which is the date on which the cause for payment occurred.

2. Each of the facts charged in the instant case is an offense against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.

After the institution of the instant prosecution, the victims expressed their intention not to be punished against the Defendant in this court on June 26, 2017 and July 4, 2017, respectively.

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