The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and D, around June 13, 2015, agreed to exempt each damaged employee from all civil, criminal, and administrative responsibilities with respect to retirement allowances, etc. until May 13, 2015 (hereinafter “instant exemption agreement”), and paid the pertinent exemption amount, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged in the instant case even though the retirement allowance portion up to May 13, 2015 should be excluded from criminal facts. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As a matter of course, the determination of the allegation, such as mistake of the facts, has the nature of the subsequent wage. Thus, unless it is established as effective due to the interim settlement of the retirement allowance, a claim for payment of the retirement allowance does not arise during the duration of the contract, and accordingly, if an employer and an employee agree to pay a certain amount in advance as the retirement allowance (hereinafter “retirement payment agreement”), the agreement is null and void as it violates Article 8 of the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for Workers, unless it is acknowledged as the interim settlement of the retirement allowance under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and thus, the agreement is invalid as it goes against the provisions of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for Workers, which is a mandatory law, even if an employer has paid a worker a certain amount of money in the name of the retirement allowance under the division agreement, even if the employer has paid it to the employee, it is not effective as the retirement allowance payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da90760, Oct. 20, 2011>