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 of facts) is a small-scale small-scale business with the only worker of E, and thus, from the standpoint of E, it was difficult for the Defendant, the employer, to raise an objection to retirement pay. In light of the fact that it was difficult for the Defendant to raise an objection to retirement pay, there is considerable reason for the Defendant

As such, there was no intention to pay retirement allowances to the defendant.

must be viewed.

2. If there is a ground for dispute over the existence of the obligation to pay wages, such as wages, there is reasonable ground that the employer has not paid such wages, etc.;

Therefore, the employer had the intent to commit the crime of violating the obligation to pay wages, etc.

In light of the circumstances at the time of dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc., the issue of whether there are grounds for dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. shall be determined in light of the reasons for the refusal of the employer's refusal of payment, the grounds for such obligation, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the business purpose, and all other circumstances at the time of dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. The employer's civil liability to pay wages ex post facto should not be readily concluded that the employer's intention is acknowledged as to the failure to pay wages or retirement allowances immediately. However, where the employer refuses the payment of retirement allowances to the retired worker on the ground of an agreement with the employer that "the retirement allowances are included in the monthly salary or daily pay" which has no legal effect, it cannot be deemed that there are reasonable grounds for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay retirement allowances, and it cannot be said that such an employer has no intention to violate the obligation to pay retirement allowances within the date of retirement allowances as stipulated by the Guarantee Act (Supreme Court Decision 238 August