All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the employer who runs the manufacturing business by employing 16 full-time workers as the representative of the limited company in Kujin-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

(a) When a worker dies or retires, an employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay the wages, compensations, and all other money and valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred, unless there exists an extension of the date by an agreement between the parties concerned, due to any special circumstances;

Nevertheless, the Defendant had worked from February 3, 2014 to April 4, 2017 at the above workplace and had not paid the total of KRW 69,400,000 from May 5, 2015 to April 4, 2017, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

(b) An employer who violates the guarantee of retirement benefits of a worker shall, in cases where the worker retires, pay the retirement benefits within fourteen days after the ground for such payment occurred, unless there exists any extension of the due date under an agreement between the parties concerned due

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 9,523,219 of D retirement pay, which was retired from the said workplace from office from February 3, 2014 to April 4, 2017, within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the Labor Standards Act is a violation of Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits is a violation of Article 44 subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, and the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent under the proviso of Article 44 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers

Accordingly, the victim D, after the prosecution of this case, stated that the victim D would not raise a civil or criminal objection against the 2018 Godan 1177 case, which was after the prosecution of this case.