The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the actual management owner of the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building B, 510, who employs eight full-time workers and engages in publishing business.

The Defendant had worked from July 4, 201 to August 27, 2012 at the same place of business, and retired from the said place of business, and had not paid KRW 6,054,085 of the total wage of two workers within 14 days from each date of retirement, as stated in the attached Table, including the amount of KRW 1,956,170 on July 7, 2012, and the amount of KRW 1,908,931 on August 2012, 201, and KRW 3,865,101 on August 3, 2012.

B. The Defendant, at the foregoing place of business, worked from July 4, 2011 to August 27, 2012, and did not pay KRW 10,232,177 in total for three employees as stated in the details of arrears, such as D retirement pay 2,793,548, etc., and did not pay KRW 10,232,177 within 14 days from the date of each retirement without any agreement on extending the payment date between the parties concerned

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the fact that wages are not paid after retirement constitutes 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, and constitutes a crime of non-compliance under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

In addition, the fact that each retirement allowance is unpaid to E and F is a crime falling under Articles 31 and 9 of the former Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 25, 201); while the above Act does not stipulate the above crime as a crime of non-prosecution, the above crime was revised under the proviso of Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 25, 201) as an offense of non-prosecution. The Addenda does not include any transitional provision related to its application, but is more favorable to the defendant under the amended Act, so the amended Act shall be applied pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4462, Oct. 28, 2005).