The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even though the defendant had the intent to commit a crime under Article 44 subparag. 1 and Article 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant had the intent to commit a crime under the above Act, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds for the defendant's dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay retirement allowances against D,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous and erroneous.

2. Determination

A. If the pertinent legal doctrine and the employer agreed to pay a certain amount in advance with the monthly pay or daily pay that the employee pays (hereinafter “retirement allowance installment agreement”), the agreement is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, which is a mandatory law, because the employee renounces his/her right to claim a retirement allowance that occurs at the time of the final retirement unless the agreement is acknowledged as an interim settlement of the retirement allowance under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and as a result, the employer pays the employee a certain amount in the name

Even if there is no validity as retirement allowance payment.

(1) In cases where there are reasonable grounds to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, the employer shall be deemed to have not paid wages. Thus, it is difficult to deem that there was an intentional act on the violation of the obligation to pay wages within the period of retirement allowances under Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, but it is difficult to deem that there was an intentional act on the part of the employer with regard to the violation of the obligation to pay wages within the period of retirement allowances under Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act. However, Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do6969 Decided December 24, 2004; 2005Do1089 Decided June 9, 2005; 2007.