beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the defendant, at the time of retirement from office, selected the workers by the method of accumulating the amount of monthly retirement in addition to the monthly salary (hereinafter “the method of accumulating the amount of monthly retirement pay”) and the method of accumulating the amount of monthly retirement pay (hereinafter “the method of accumulating the amount of monthly retirement pay”), which is the ordinary method of paying the amount of monthly retirement pay only for one year or more of the workers. However, the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not pay the amount of retirement pay on the premise that D’s monthly salary is KRW 2,291,67, since D’s monthly salary was chosen by the method of accumulating the amount of accumulation, and based on the accumulation method, D’s monthly salary was KRW 2,50,000,000.
B. Even if the conviction of an unreasonable sentencing is recognized, the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake is based on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the labor contract (Evidence No. 28 of the evidence record), and the certificate of waiver of a retirement allowance (Evidence No. 30 of the evidence record, but the above labor contract and the certificate of waiver of a retirement allowance are deemed not to have signed, and ② the Defendant’s assertion that the amount of the D’s salary was calculated based on the minimum wage standard and the amount of the 2,291,666 won plus the money in the form of the incentive. However, the above labor contract is not admissible as evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion because the wage system was prepared based on the minimum price of 2016 and the calculation standard of a retirement allowance was not explicitly stated, ③ there is no evidence to prove the specific payment criteria or calculation criteria of the incentives claimed by the Defendant, and there is no minimum wage.