The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court.

1. According to Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a complaint may be withdrawn before the pronouncement of a judgment in the first instance. However, a person who has withdrawn a complaint once so shall not file a new complaint.

This legal principle applies likewise to the withdrawal of expression of intent for punishment in a case which cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victim.

Therefore, in order to recognize that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish a person in a crime of non-violation of intention, the victim’s true intent should be expressed in a way that enables clear and trustable. However, even if such intent is explicitly expressed after the withdrawal of the expression of intent and expressed his/her wish to punish again, the perpetrator cannot be punished.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10183, Jan. 15, 2009). Moreover, the absence of the expression of intent not to punish a person subject to punishment is a passive litigation condition, and thus, the court should ex officio investigate and determine it ex officio, even if the party did not assert it.

2. The record reveals the following facts.

The facts charged of the instant case stated as follows: “The Defendant did not pay KRW 27,50,000 for the unpaid wage in 2010, and KRW 33,000,000 for the unpaid wage in 2011, and KRW 33,04,640 for the unpaid wage in 2012, and KRW 63,544,640 for the unpaid wage in 2012 within 14 days from the date of retirement as of the date of the occurrence of the cause of payment without agreement between the parties to the instant case,” and the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of the instant case.

However, according to the records, such as reference documents submitted by the Defendant to the lower court, D submitted to the labor inspector a written withdrawal statement stating that “A person shall voluntarily agree and withdraw the petition,” on February 20, 2012, with the same content as the facts charged in the instant case, was genuine to the Labor Administration.” However, on May 29, 2012, the written withdrawal statement stating that “A person voluntarily agrees to withdraw the petition.”