A. Regarding misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1), as to the fact that advance notice of dismissal is unpaid (Article 2 of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below), F is a stock company C (hereinafter “C”).

F, C, and E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) not dismissed from office;

(2) According to the mutual agreement between the parties, the Defendant transferred from C to E without a vacancy in the work period of E. In addition, given that F refused the Defendant’s order of work, and caused damage to C above KRW 40 million due to the failure to take follow-up measures on the projects in which he participated, this constitutes an exception that does not pay advance notice of dismissal under Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay advance notice of dismissal to F, and thus, this part of the facts charged on the ground that he did not pay advance notice of dismissal allowance, cannot be found guilty. 2) As to the fact that the Defendant did not pay wages, etc. and retirement allowance (the facts charged in the original judgment), the Defendant expressed his intent to offset F’s wages, retirement allowances, and claims against F’s loans of KRW 60 million,000,000,0000, and the F agreed with free will without any objection thereto.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged cannot be found guilty on the grounds that wages, etc. and retirement allowances are unpaid.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Determination of the lower court on the part of unpaid advance notice of dismissal allowance (Article 2(1)1 of the Criminal Act in the original judgment) is also effective as long as the Defendant retired from C under mutual agreement with F, and even if there was no agreement, F’s dismissal is invalid.