The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal shows that the defendant did not pay part of D's retirement pay, but D consented to the payment of part of D's retirement pay. The defendant is merely an application for provisional seizure of D's retirement allowance claims prior to the due date for retirement pay and a part of D's retirement allowance claims before the due date for retirement pay, where it is believed that such consent exists.

As such, the Defendant did not have intention to violate the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, but the lower court convicted the Defendant of violating the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal on whether D consented to partial payment of retirement allowances, and the lower court determined that “the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” was 2-A.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

B. Determination as to whether the Defendant had the intent to commit the instant crime, and whether there exists a justifiable reason for partial non-payment of retirement pay, on the grounds of this part’s assertion, the Defendant believed that there was such an agreement with D even if it was acknowledged that there had been no agreement on the extension of payment due date between D, and the limited partnership C committed tort from October 28, 2018 to September 2017.