The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the Defendant did not pay weekly leave allowances to workers E at the time when he was investigated by the Labor Office, and that E also stated that he did not receive weekly leave allowances in the original court, and that the Defendant and E did not agree to include weekly leave allowances in KRW 10,00,00, and therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the Defendant, even though he could have found the Defendant guilty

2. The summary of the facts charged is a business owner who is the representative of D in the Southern-gu Seoul metropolitan area and operated an insurance agency business using four regular workers.

When a worker dies or retires, the employer shall pay the wages, compensations, and other money and valuables within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

Provided, That the date may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 750,000,00, total of the wages of KRW 200,000 on October 29, 2012 to March 13, 2013 at the same place of business, within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date between the parties concerned.

3. Relevant legal principles

A. If there is a ground for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., it shall be deemed that there is a considerable reason for the employer to not pay such wages, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the employer had the intent to commit a crime of violation of Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there is a ground for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. shall be the reason for the employer’s refusal of payment