Therefore, even though the Defendant could not be found guilty of violating the Act on the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits of Workers (hereinafter “Retirement Benefits Act”), the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, there is considerable reason for the Defendant to not pay retirement allowances to workers.

It is difficult to see that the defendant has the intention to violate the retirement benefit law.

The judgment of the court below is justified.

(1) The defendant paid 7,200,000 won as retirement allowances to workers according to an interim agreement on the settlement of accounts of retirement allowances.

The argument is asserted.

However, workers have consistently raised monthly salary from 1.8 million to 2 million won, and the defendant has accumulated 300,000 won among them in the form of installment savings in the form of an installment savings, and he/she would return the monthly salary after the lapse of 24 months.

In response to this, the defendant only stated that there was no fact that the retirement pay was included in the amount of 300,000 won accumulated each month.

Therefore, there was an interim settlement agreement of retirement allowance claimed by the defendant.

In addition, even if there exists an agreement as alleged by the Defendant, the said agreement cannot be deemed as an interim settlement of retirement benefits in force under Article 8(2) of the Act.

Retirement benefits that an employer has no legal effect in violation of the retirement benefits law, which is a mandatory law.