The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The part of the violation of the Labor Standards Act was signed between D where the Defendant is the representative director (hereinafter “D”) and the victim E with the annual salary system. Since D used a monthly leave to all employees including the victim, there is no obligation to pay the unused allowance every year.

2) From September 1, 2007 to March 19, 2011, the victim of the first retirement benefit portion for the period from September 1, 2007 to March 19, 201, paid KRW 11,285,154, including KRW 11,285,154, which was after the victim's second retirement from May 2, 201.

B) The amount of retirement allowance of 8,294,066 won for the period from April 14, 201 to December 17, 2013, which was the second service period, was already settled if the victim had been deducted from the amount of temporary payment due to the temporary payment from time to time while working in D.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months on February 4, 2015 at the Seoul Eastern District Court for occupational breach of trust, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 20, 2015.

Therefore, each crime of occupational breach of trust and each crime in the judgment of the court below against the defendant, for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, shall be sentenced to punishment for each crime in consideration of equity in the case where the judgment of the court below is to be rendered at the same time in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, Article 60 of the Labor Standards Act on the part of violation of the Labor Standards Act is an employer.