A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. In that sense, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement.

1) Regarding the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant paid the amount of embezzlement to D Hospital employees (hereinafter “instant hospital”) for actual cash payment, which is the difference between “amount claimed” and “amount actually paid,” which is the difference between “amount of claim” in the annexed crime Nos. 2 of the judgment of the court below and “amount of actual payment,” and there was no embezzlement (the specific change of the Defendant’s lawsuit and its determination below).

3. A. 2) In addition, some of the above "Embezzlements" is used by the Defendant for public relations at hospital, rebates for attracting patients, entertainment expenses, etc. under the victim's implied consent, and thus, the intent of illegal acquisition is not recognized.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal by the defendant related to clerical error in the list of crimes in annexed Form 2.

The instant hospital pays the monthly salary on the fifth day of the following month (if a legal holiday exists, the immediately preceding business day), and the detailed payment procedure was conducted by the Defendant, who is the chief of the instant hospital, to prepare a ledger of salary payment to be paid to its employees on the fifth day, who is the payment date of monthly salary, and requests the victim to approve and pay the same, the victim confirmed and approved it, and then deposited the amount equivalent to the total amount of the relevant monthly salary into the victim’s bank account (AO) in the name of the Defendant’s custody. The Defendant transferred the salary from the said account to the account of the relevant employee.

The victim, upon filing a complaint with the defendant, claimed the difference between the amount of the above deposit and the amount of the remittance as the embezzlement amount of the defendant. The prosecutor prepared the list of crimes in annexed Form 1 and prepared the list of crimes in annexed Form 1, and the above remittance amount in the column of "actual payment", and the difference in the column of "amount of embezzlement".