As long as the termination of the contractual relationship with the employee is declared, the employee shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the obligation to pay the pre-employment allowance shall be borne.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

2. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial on the board, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to believe that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do3309 delivered on April 12, 1996). The court below directly examined the witness E and acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case while explaining the grounds for the judgment in detail. Examining the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the records, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant dismissed E by unilateral declaration of intention.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case does not seem to be unlawful, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.