A. Although the victim is not a worker but a franchise for receiving business subsidies, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment (the fine of KRW 400,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. On October 26, 2018, the prosecutor’s decision on the amendment of the indictment in the instant case was finalized on January 4, 2019 by having been sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor and five months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Suwon District Court for occupational embezzlement, etc.

'The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Code stated that the applicable provisions of the Act applied for the amendment of the bill of amendment to the contents of each addition were approved by this court.

However, on October 26, 2018, the judgment of the court below was rendered ex officio by the Suwon District Court that "the defendant was sentenced to five months of embezzlement and imprisonment for a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act on January 4, 2019, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 23, 2019, and on April 11, 2019, the judgment became final and conclusive on April 11, 2019" was added to "the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act".

Therefore, the judgment of the court is not reversed because there was no change in the subject of the judgment in spite of the amendment of indictment.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court stated the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., ① the report on the overdue payment of wages submitted by E to the Daejeon Branch on September 14, 2017 and retired from office for two months and fifteen days for 15 days. “E is paid KRW 340,000,000 from the Defendant on September 29, 2017, and KRW 1 million on October 31, 2017, and ② the Defendant paid the labor inspector the unpaid wage of KRW 1,00,000,000,000.” During the prosecutor’s investigation, the “person in charge of E” refers to good offices, public relations, working hours, 10-5 hours, and the last day of wage payment,