The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment of the court below which acquitted retired workers of the above facts charged, on the other hand, although the defendant did not pay retirement allowances to retired workers as stated in the facts charged in this case,

2. Determination

A. In light of the contents of the “labor contract” written between the Defendant and workers, “an interim retirement allowance calculation and related statement,” and “agreement on retirement allowance, etc.” written between the Defendant and the workers, etc., the Defendant appears to have agreed to pay 10% of the monthly salary to the workers at the time of the deposit of the benefits paid to them and the details of the statement written in the account of the workers at the time of the deposit. It appears that there was no special objection against the aforementioned payment of the benefits after July 2012, it appears that there was no evidence from the fact that there was an employee’s retirement allowance payment in the above form, as well as the fact that there was no objection against the payment of the benefits after July 14, 2017. In the case of E, F and G retired from office on April 7, 2018, the said employee demanded the Defendant to pay the retirement allowance until the time of submission of the written advance payment to the Seoul Regional Labor Agency on February 1, 2019.