The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant, upon the employee D’s request, paid the monthly retirement pay in installments during the period of his work, the Defendant did not pay D’s retirement pay within 14 days from the date of his retirement without agreement on extension of the due date.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. If the pertinent legal doctrine and the employer agreed to pay a certain amount in advance with the monthly pay or daily pay paid by the employee (hereinafter “retirement allowance installment agreement”), the agreement is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, which is a mandatory law, because the employee renounces his/her right to claim a retirement allowance accrued at the time of the final retirement, unless the agreement is acknowledged as an interim settlement of a retirement allowance under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits. As a result, the employer paid a certain amount in the name of

Even if there is no validity as retirement allowance payment.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8248, Oct. 13, 2011). Therefore, in a case where an employer refuses to pay a retirement allowance to a retired employee on the ground of an agreement to divide a retirement allowance which is not legally effective, it cannot be deemed that the employer has a reasonable ground for disputing the existence or absence of the obligation to pay a retirement allowance, and it cannot be deemed that such an employer has no intention on the violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4171, Aug. 23, 2007).

Judgment

In light of the above legal principles, the instant case is about health.