The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, ① is an independent business operator who has entered into a content supply contract with the Defendant, not an employee who provides work for the purpose of wages subordinate to the Defendant. ② Even if D is a worker, given that contractual work hours per week from March 2, 2013 to April 30, 2017 during the period of work D are less than 15 hours, there is no obligation to pay retirement allowances pursuant to the proviso to Article 4(1) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged that D is a worker employed by the defendant, and that D's contractual work hours per week during the above period are not less than 15 hours, and recognized that the defendant was liable to pay retirement allowances.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the actual manager of C, an incorporated association in Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si, who ordinarily employs 103 workers and operates educational service business.

From March 1, 2013 to May 31, 2018, the Defendant did not pay KRW 10,105,533 of D retirement pay to workers who worked as after-school education instructors at the above workplace within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

B. Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Whether D is a worker employed by the Defendant under the relevant legal principles should be determined based on whether the form of contract is an employment contract or an employment contract, and in substance, whether the employee provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages in the business or workplace.

Here, whether or not a subordinate relationship is determined by the employer and rules of employment or service (person).