A. In fact, the Defendant paid retirement allowances twice a year according to the labor contract concluded with F and G, and even if the aforementioned payment of retirement allowances has no judicial effect as retirement allowances, the Defendant did not pay retirement allowances, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant should be acquitted, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where: (a) the pertinent legal doctrine and the employee agreed to pay a certain amount of money in advance with the monthly salary or daily allowance paid by the employer and the employee (hereinafter “retirement installment agreement”), the agreement is a waiver of the employee’s right to claim a retirement allowance accrued at the time of the final retirement unless it is acknowledged as an interim settlement of the retirement allowance under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act; and (b) it is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the same Act, which is a mandatory law, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da90760, May 20, 201; 2009Do8248, Oct. 13, 2011; and (c) the court below’s judgment and the court below’s evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court below, and the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable in light of the following circumstances.

(1) The Defendant, like other workers in the same workplace, prepared a labor contract in F and G with the same F and paid retirement allowances in installments pursuant to Article 6 of the relevant employment contract.

One of the arguments, F and G deny the fact that the defendant prepared the labor contract itself, and the defendant also prepares with F and G.