A. The Defendant paid a total of 3,100,000 won (10,000 won x 31 months) as retirement allowances to the victim by dividing a 100,000 won per month.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the documentary evidence, such as the fact that an agreement to divide a retirement allowance by including the retirement allowance in the determination of the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principle was an exceptional, but no document was prepared, and the victim stated that there was no such agreement and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it, it is difficult to recognize the fact that there was a partial payment of the retirement allowance agreement and the retirement allowance according thereto, such as the defendant's assertion.

Even if there was an agreement on the installment of retirement allowances, this is invalid since it does not constitute an interim settlement of retirement allowances as stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and thus, it is invalid as a retirement allowance payment even if it was paid

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8248, Oct. 13, 2011). Furthermore, in such cases, an employer has intent to pay retirement allowances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4171 Decided August 23, 2007). The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and motive and means of committing the crime.