Therefore, the above life-saving bonus falls under the wage, which is the remuneration for labor, but the defendant did not pay G a life-saving bonus.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged is the employer who operates a private teaching institute business as the president of the F University in Busan-gu, Jeonju-si E.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money or valuables within 14 days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Provided, That the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, who was employed in the above school from March 1, 1996 to February 28, 2016, did not pay the total of KRW 1.2 million from the date of retirement within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties, including KRW 400,000,000 for the snow bonus in 2015, KRW 400,000,000 for the year 2015, and KRW 400,000 for the snow bonus in 2016.

3. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the instant facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as wages with the duty to pay a life-saving bonus as stated in the instant facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court based on the legal doctrine as stated in its reasoning.

1) Although the F University’s remuneration regulations stipulate teachers’ bonus allowance, etc., there is no so-called bonus (the so-called rice tea value).

F Universities are 60% of the basic salary in the name section.