The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

The prosecutor of the judgment of the court below on the second ground.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The retirement allowance for the part on which the Defendant (the lower court’s judgment was erroneous) had worked from December 1, 2010 to April 2013 was paid in installments pursuant to the actual retirement allowance division agreement between the Defendant and the employee E, and the retirement allowance for the part on which the Defendant had worked from May 1, 2013 to May 4, 2017 was paid in 16,285,000 won when E retires after having agreed to set aside 10% of the monthly salary as retirement allowance. As such, the retirement allowance for E was paid in full.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts against the judgment of the court below of the second instance and misunderstanding of legal principles) concluded a two-time contract with the Defendant to talk about the accumulation of retirement allowances. Since the employee H offered to the unpaid portion immediately after the payment of retirement allowances, the Defendant’s intent to pay wages and retirement allowances can be fully recognized.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant: (a) The right to claim a retirement allowance on December 1, 2010 to April 2013, which had been served from December 1, 2010 to April 2013, as long as the labor contract remains in existence, there is no room for the obligation to pay a retirement allowance; and (b) even if the Defendant paid a certain amount under the name of the retirement allowance on the monthly salary or daily salary paid each month, it is not effective as a retirement allowance payment under Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act; and (c) as such, the agreement to receive a retirement allowance by including the retirement allowance on the monthly salary or daily daily daily salary as above is waived in advance, and is null and void in violation of Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act, which is a mandatory law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4171, Aug. 23, 207). Therefore, even if the Defendant paid the retirement allowance along with the wage under the actual installment agreement between E and E during the above period, the aforementioned period is invalid.