The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. D, operated by the Defendant misunderstanding the fact, is not a place of business that ordinarily employs not less than five workers.

A worker's retirement benefits system is implemented from December 1, 2010 pursuant to Article 8 of the Addenda to the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act in four or less workplaces at all times, and there is no obligation to pay a retirement allowance before November 30, 2010.

The judgment of the court below which found a person guilty of a retirement allowance from January 17, 2007 to November 30, 2010 is erroneous.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. The number of full-time workers in order to determine whether the obligation to pay retirement allowances under the Act on the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for the employee in question exists shall be calculated on the basis of the total working period of the employee in question. The meaning of the term "regular situation" refers to cases where the number of workers in question is less than five (5) in time, even if the number of workers becomes less than five (5). It includes not only those who continue to work in the workplace in question but also those who are employed for the time when they are needed at that time (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do102, Dec. 26, 2013). It is insufficient to prove that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not enough to prove that the defendant is a workplace in which the defendant employs not less than five (5) workers in a state (standing).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged as to the unpaid retirement allowance from January 17, 2007 to November 30, 2010 is erroneous.

3. The entire judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the arguments are presented without examining the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing, since the facts charged by the court which accepted the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and the remaining facts charged which the court found the defendant guilty are single crime.