The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The decision of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there are no special grounds to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation to pay retirement allowances to F with respect to the existence of the obligation to pay retirement allowances to F, and thus the facts charged in this case are found guilty.

Judgment

The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant, as the representative of the Company E (hereinafter “instant company”), did not pay the F retirement allowance despite having been paid to the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant concluded an employment contract on behalf of the instant company with G, H, I, and other executives and employees, including F, and entered into an additional agreement on the division of retirement allowances to pay a certain amount in the name of the retirement allowance separately from wages; and (c) the Defendant paid a certain amount in addition to monthly wages; (b) from October 1, 1995 to June 30, 2010, while serving as the head, director, from around July 1, 2010, the Defendant was working for the instant company as an executive director. In particular, the Defendant did not receive 1/13 of the total annual salary; and (d) concluded a plan on the division of the instant retirement allowance, including the remaining amount of the retirement allowance, to demand the payment of the company’s annual salary; and (e) concluded that the remaining amount of the retirement allowance including the retirement allowance to be paid to the employees.