The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant and D’s labor relationship at each construction site were severedd due to the expiration of the term of each construction site or the termination of each construction project, and therefore, D’s continuous employment period does not exceed one year, there is no obligation to pay retirement allowances.

In addition, there was no intention to pay retirement allowances because there was a dispute about the duty to pay retirement allowances.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding assertion does not necessarily satisfy the requirements of full-time, continuous, and subordinate nature of workers who are the premise for the payment of retirement allowances under the Labor Standards Act, with an average of at least 25 days per month, and if they continue to work for at least 4,5, or 15 days per month, such requirements shall be met. Although they are employed as a part of a day-time worker, if they continue to work without suspending a day-work relationship, they shall be viewed as a commercial worker, and if they have renewed a contract with the expiry of the term of employment at the same time or repeatedly concluded an employment contract on the same condition, they shall be calculated by adding up the renewed or repeated term of employment at the construction site (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da26168, Jul. 11, 1995). It has been repeatedly concluded at the construction site for the same 10-day period from August 5, 2009 to July 21, 2010, but they were employed by Defendant 20-day 16.