The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant, as the representative director of the Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. in the annual, is an employer who runs a manufacturing business (a landscape facility) with six full-time workers.

The defendant works as landscape engineers from May 6, 2013 to December 15, 2014 at the same place of business.

A retired worker D’s total amount of KRW 1,669,200 on October 2014, and KRW 1,769,200 on November 2014, and KRW 857,677 on December 2014, and KRW 4,296,07 on December 21, 2014, and KRW 4,296,07 on-site daily work from December 21, 2014 to January 3, 2015.

A retired worker E’s total wage of KRW 6,396,07 for the said two persons, including wage of KRW 2,100,000 on December 12, 2014, did not pay KRW 6,396,077 on the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

B. The Defendant works as landscaping engineers from May 6, 2013 to December 15, 2014 at the foregoing workplace.

2,809,259 of retirement pay of retired workers D was not paid 14 days after the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are those falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the same Act. The violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits is a crime falling under Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits and is not prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the proviso of Article 44 of the same Act.

However, according to the records of this case, the victims can recognize the fact that they have withdrawn their wish to punish the defendant on October 2, 2015, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.

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