근로기준법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant has already paid D retirement benefits including D's retirement benefits, and the defendant has no obligation to pay D's retirement benefits, so the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case
2. There is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid a retirement allowance to D as part of the monthly salary, and there is no room for the obligation to pay a retirement allowance as long as the labor contract remains in force as the right to claim the payment of a retirement allowance arises only with the requirement of termination of the labor relationship, which is the retirement allowance. Thus, even if the defendant paid a certain amount of money under the name of the retirement allowance, it is not effective in the payment of a retirement allowance under the Labor Standards Act, and as such, the agreement to receive a retirement allowance included in the monthly salary is null and void as it is in violation of Article 34 of the former Labor Standards Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4171, Aug. 23, 2007). The defendant's assertion that the defendant does not have the obligation to pay
3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.