The defendant is the actual operator of D Co., Ltd. located in P at the time of strike and is an employer who runs a building design business using five regular workers.

The Defendant served as an employee from March 20, 200 to April 10, 2015 in the above company and served as an employee from July 1, 2001 to April 10, 201, and did not pay 44,113,240 won in total for two retired workers, including 20,378,290 won in F's retirement allowances, and paid 23,734,950 won in retirement allowances, and 20,000 won in retirement allowances from July 1, 201 to April 10, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of police statement to F and E;

1. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it cannot be said that there has been a genuine agreement on interim settlement of retirement allowances between the Defendant and the victims on the interim settlement of retirement allowances to the effect that the amount paid by the Defendant as interim settlement of retirement allowances falls short of the amount of retirement allowances calculated as average wages of at least 30 days for the consecutive one year of employment of the victims, in light of the fact that the amount paid by the Defendant as interim settlement of retirement allowances falls short of the amount of retirement allowances calculated as average wages of at least 30 days for the continuous one year of employment of the victims. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s payment of the amount under the pretext of interim settlement of retirement allowances under the former part of Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act is invalid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da7706, Dec. 13, 2012).

1. Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act applicable to facts constituting an offense and Article 44 subparagraph 1 of the same Act.