The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. A person who works as a swimming instructor in F of the operation of E with a summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts);

G and H’s employee status is recognized, and the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that the above instructors are workers in the position of the chief executive officer of the above E, and thus, the Defendant had the intent to commit a crime of violating the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, which did not pay retirement allowances within 14 days after the retirement

Although the court below judged otherwise and found the defendant not guilty, there is an error of mistake in fact.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the president of Ulsan-gu E (hereinafter “E”) located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, a full-time employee of the E (hereinafter “E”), was an employer who runs a service business (public facility management business) using 350 full-time employees.

When an employee retires, an employer shall pay a retirement allowance within 14 days from the date on which the cause for such payment occurred.

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant worked in F as a swimming instructor from March 1, 2010 to March 22, 2012 (it is evident that it is the clerical error in the written indictment) from March 1, 2010 to March 22, 2012, and paid KRW 9,595,250,00 from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the extension of the payment date, as retirement pay of KRW 7,426,90 of the G retirement pay, and as a swimming instructor, from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2012, two workers, including KRW 2,168,350, who were retired, including KRW 9,59,250, as well as KRW 14 days, from the date of retirement without agreement between the parties to the agreement on the extension of the payment date.

B. The lower court’s determination as to the worker nature is based on the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the types of lectures, lectures, and lecture time and place related to the lecture course of Gangwon History G and H, ② the fingerprint recognition system for the above instructors, or the part of their commuting to their workplace.