The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) The Defendant does not have any balance between the amount of retirement pay and the amount that reflects the interim settlement of the retirement pay to the employee H as wages; and (b) there is no basis for the amount of retirement pay calculated with respect to the employee H. In the case of I, the Defendant is not an employee of the LAB but an advertising client rather than an employee of the LAB.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Article 34(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employee shall prepare a system for the payment of retirement allowances to a retired employee for the employer, and the retirement allowance is a requirement for the termination of a labor relationship, and there is no room for the obligation to pay retirement allowances in principle during the existence of a labor contract. Thus, even if the Defendant agreed to pay a certain amount of money under the name of the retirement allowance and the Defendant paid it, even if the Defendant agreed to do so, it is not effective as retirement allowance payment under Article 34(1) of the Labor Standards Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2211 Decided July 12, 2002, etc.). (B) In light of the above legal principle, the Defendant paid part of the money under the name of retirement pay, on the ground that the Defendant’s health team and the Defendant, from 2006, included the amount of KRW 100,000 in the monthly salary to the employees H, including the retirement pay.

Even if the amount of money in the name of retirement allowance is specified separately from the wage on the record.