The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act with respect to B, C, and D among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the remainder of the facts charged. The defendant appealed only to the guilty part, and the dismissal part of the prosecution is finalized as it is because both the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal against the dismissal part of the prosecution. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) Defendant paid monthly retirement allowances to workers, including monthly pay, and the actual service period of workers is different from the facts acknowledged by the lower court.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. It is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that there was an agreement between the Defendant and workersJ, K, L, and H to pay monthly retirement allowances in installments, solely on the fact that the Defendant stated “including retirement allowances” in the wage ledger submitted by the Defendant regarding the assertion that the payment of retirement allowances was made in installments, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the agreement.

Even if the Defendant agreed to divide the retirement allowance with his/her employees as above, the agreement is null and void as it gives up the employee’s right to claim a retirement allowance accrued at the time of the final retirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do4171, Aug. 23, 2007; 2000Da27671, Jul. 26, 2002). Thus, even if the Defendant paid the employee an amount of money in the name of the retirement allowance, it is not effective as a retirement allowance payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da9150, May 27, 2010). (b) The amount of money in the name of the retirement allowance distinct from the Defendant’s wage is specified.