The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as C representative director in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, employs six full-time workers from August 2008 to July 31, 201, and operates an electronic communications manufacturing business by employing two full-time workers from August 1, 201 to February 28, 201.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

The Defendant is working from October 1, 2008 to April 21, 2012 at the above workplace.

The retired D’s wages of KRW 13,376,897, and labor from December 1, 2009 to February 28, 2013.

The retired E's wages amounting to KRW 31,282,777 in total, 17,905,880 was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on extension between the parties to the payment.

(b) An employer who violates the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall, in case where a worker retires, pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred; and

The Defendant is working from October 1, 2008 to April 21, 2012 at the above workplace.

A retired D's retirement allowance of 12,738,243 won, or from December 1, 2009 to February 28, 2013.

The retirement allowance of retired E was not paid 23,483,950 won in total, 10,745,707 won within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on extension of the payment 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, the above worker’s withdrawal of his/her wish to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case is instituted. Thus, Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.