A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, ① Money deposited by visitors in preparation for food was deposited in a passbook under the name of F (hereinafter “the Foundation”). The ownership of the Foundation of this case was held.

I would like to say.

The Foundation used the money for the operation of the G Elderly Specialized Care Center (hereinafter “the instant medical care center”) under the Foundation and the Foundation, such as the purchase of food materials costs, the payment of various charges, and the payment of wages to its employees.

The defendant used the operating expenses of the above foundation for the repayment of his deposit.

This is not a legitimate change of the foundation's obligations, but a private use.

The defendant embezzled 37,595,364 won while he/she kept the above food materials expenses for his/her business for private purposes.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

② The Defendant did not make a false report to the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) on the hours during which the Defendant served as a doctor of J, K, or L for medical care protection.

Unlike facts, it has been reported differently

Even if it is not an intentional exaggeration of working hours, but an error of determination on working hours by negligence is merely a mistake. Therefore, it is concluded that the defendant acquired long-term care benefits by deceiving the damaged person by deceiving the Corporation and receiving money for improvement of additional dues and rating without being subject to reduction of long-term care benefits, and received long-term care benefits unlawfully.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order of 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the prosecutor’s crime of this case is not good and that the case is serious, the sentence of the court below is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court’s assertion on occupational embezzlement.