A. The Defendant was not in a situation to dismiss D when he prepared for the relocation of the workplace at the time of mistake of facts, and the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he would find out another day in the process of imposing the Defendant’s work attitude only. However, this is not the meaning of dismissal, but rather the fact that D voluntarily retires. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. The lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The grounds for termination of a labor contract on an assertion of mistake can be divided into retirement made by the employee’s intention or consent, dismissal made by the employee’s unilateral intent against the employee’s will, and automatic extinguishment made regardless of the employee’s intent. Of them, dismissal means the termination of all labor contract relations made by the employee’s unilateral will against the employee’s will against the employee’s will, irrespective of the name or procedure which is actually unfavorable

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da92148 Decided March 24, 201 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da92148, Mar. 24, 201). The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e.,: (a) D, at the court of the lower court, told that it was late until December 23, 2017; (b) it was difficult for the Defendant to work on December 24, 2017; and (c) the Defendant called “the Defendant to find another job” by telephone; and (d) the Defendant again called “before the date of payment and the withdrawal from the office at the end of December; and (e) the Defendant sent the Defendant a similar e-mail to the Defendant on December 31, 2017, etc. < Amended by Act No. 15183, Dec. 27, 2017>