The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the erroneous determination of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant entered into an agreement on the division of retirement allowances with workers E and paid retirement allowances to include them in the monthly wage, and the employee E also prepared an interim written request for settlement of retirement allowances within the meaning of confirming this, and without objection, the Defendant did not have any grounds for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay retirement allowances to workers E, and thus, cannot be found to have committed an intentional act in violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

B. In light of the fact that the retirement consolation money after the instant case of unfair sentencing was paid KRW 7 million, the first instance court’s punishment (basic fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. If there is a ground for dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay retirement allowances with regard to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it shall be deemed that there is a reasonable ground for the employer to refuse the payment of retirement allowances. Therefore, it shall be difficult to find that the employer had the intent to commit a violation of Articles 31 and 9 of the Act. Whether there is a ground for dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay retirement allowances, such as retirement allowances, shall be determined in light of the reason for the employer's refusal of payment, the ground for such obligation, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, various matters such as business purposes, and various circumstances at the time of dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay retirement allowances, and it shall not be readily concluded that the employer's civil liability is

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8248, Oct. 13, 2011). However, an employer retires on the ground of an agreement that “retirement pay shall be included in the monthly salary or daily allowance and paid,” which is not legally effective.