A. Although it was true that the Defendant did not pay wages as stated in the facts charged directly to D, the instant wage, etc. should be deemed to have been paid since D, which managed C’s funds, embezzled KRW 44,965,00 as business funds deposited in the account under the Defendant’s name.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant stated that D had embezzled KRW 30,700,000, out of KRW 39,723,40,00 which was paid by Laren Co., Ltd. on September 15, 2010 by transferring D to D’s account on the same day, but the above KRW 30,700,000, which was the money that the Defendant allowed the Defendant to transfer under the name of return of D’s investment funds. Although the Defendant filed a complaint for embezzlement, D was subject to a disposition of non-guilty suspicion at the Seoul East Seoul East District Prosecutors’ Office, but D was subject to a disposition of embezzlement. On July 30, 2010, the Defendant and D concluded an agreement with each other to maintain mutual cooperative relations after D’s withdrawal, and on August 25, 2010, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been subject to the Defendant’s duty of set-off allowance in light of the Defendant’s labor relations with D’s labor.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant denies the instant crime and still did not pay the unpaid wages, as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, and motive for the instant crime.