A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) paid C an incentive of KRW 800,000 per month to C on a basic salary of KRW 1.2 million; (b) paid only an incentive without a basic salary from December 2, 2014; (c) thus, the facts charged on the premise that monthly salary is KRW 2 million are different from the facts charged.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 4 million and the cost of lawsuit) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same factual mistake as the grounds for the above appeal.

In regard to this, the lower court: (a) the Defendant paid a certain monthly amount of KRW 2 million to C for a long time after initial employment; (b) the Defendant’s wife prepared a monthly wage of KRW 2 million on the premise that the Defendant’s wife paid the monthly salary of KRW 2 million; (c) the Defendant recognized the amount payable at the police based on KRW 2 million; (d) the Defendant did not mention all matters concerning the incentive agreement; (e) the Defendant did not mention any matter regarding the incentive agreement; and (v) the Defendant did not clearly state the details of the incentive agreement in the lower court court’s court court court’s court, and (v) the Defendant did not clearly state the details of the incentive agreement.

After the judgment, the defendant's above assertion was rejected.

2) Considering the reasoning of the judgment below's conviction as to the above deliberation comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is without merit.

B. Improper argument on sentencing.