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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a user who is a representative of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Gangseo-gu D and E in the first floor and operated a wholesale and retail business using four full-time workers.

When a worker retires, the employer shall pay the retirement allowance within fourteen days after the cause for such payment occurred.

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay KRW 17,534,963 of F's retirement allowances working in the above workplace from January 23, 2012 to July 23, 2017 within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Determination on the F’s assertion of Defendant and defense counsel

1. Agreement on interim settlement of retirement allowances;

A. The Defendant, at the beginning of October 2015, paid KRW 11,930,000 in total by November 26, 2015, following the F’s interim settlement of retirement allowances at F’s request. As such, the Defendant is not obliged to pay retirement allowances for this portion at least.

B. In a case where an employer and an employee agreed to pay a certain amount of money in advance along with the monthly salary paid each month, the agreement is null and void as it violates Article 8 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which is a mandatory law, by giving up in advance a claim for retirement benefits arising from the final retirement, unless it is acknowledged as an interim settlement of accounts for retirement benefits under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act

As a result, the employer paid the employee an amount of money in the name of the retirement allowance under such an agreement.

Even if there is no effect as retirement allowance payment.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8248 Decided October 13, 2011, and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760 Decided May 20, 201). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing is deemed to be reasonable.