The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is that the Defendant was unable to receive retirement allowances from workers E;

From November 1, 2009 to October 31, 2013, the period for claiming payment of retirement pay to E includes money in the name of retirement pay paid monthly from November 1, 2009 to October 31, 2013. There was a ground for dispute as to whether the defendant is liable to pay retirement pay to E.

Therefore, since there is a substantial reason for the defendant to pay retirement allowances to E, there was an intentional act of violating the defendant's duty to pay retirement allowances.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. If the employer of the relevant legal doctrine and the employer agreed to pay a certain amount of money in advance with the monthly wage or daily wage paid by the employee (hereinafter “retirement agreement”), the agreement is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, unless it is acknowledged that the interim payment of retirement pay under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits is a case where the employee gives up his/her right to claim a retirement allowance occurred at the time of the final retirement. Thus, the agreement is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90760, May 20, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8248, Oct. 13, 2011). Meanwhile, in order to be effective in interim settlement of the amount of retirement pay under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.

In addition, even though the employer actually paid the amount of money in the name of the retirement allowance to the employee, it is not recognized that the payment of the regular retirement allowance is not effective, and it is not recognized that the employee is paid the amount in the name of the retirement allowance.