The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The defendant in the office of a public lawsuit is the representative of the Ansan-si member C, 2-5, and D convalescent Hospital located in the eightth floor, who ordinarily employs 135 full-time workers and conducts the medical and health business.

(a) When a worker dies or retires, an employer who violates the Labor Standards Act shall pay the worker wages, compensations, or any 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.

The Defendant, as well as E’s wage of KRW 280,00 in January 28, 2015, who worked from April 28, 2016 to December 6, 2017, did not pay KRW 12,420,000 in total, including wage of KRW 3,320,000 and annual allowances, as shown in the attached Table, and did not agree on the extension of the date of payment between the parties, within 14 days from the date of retirement in which the cause of payment occurred.

(b) Where an employer who violates the Act on Retirement Benefits for a worker retires, the employer shall pay the worker a retirement allowance within 14 days after the ground for such payment occurred;

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

The Defendant did not pay KRW 6,100,201 as well as KRW 6,100,201 as retirement allowances of E employed from April 28, 2016 to December 6, 2017, and without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline, within 14 days from the date of retirement in which the cause for payment occurred.

The reasoning for dismissing the public prosecution is that the facts charged in the instant case falls under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and Article 44 proviso of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent.

According to the records, E explicitly expresses his/her intention that he/she does not want to be punished against the Defendant on July 2, 2018, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.

Therefore, the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.