The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant, who had a rehabilitation administrator of the E Medical Foundation F Hospital F Hospital of the defendant, was employed as the chief of the general affairs department and did not separately report G to the court or the management member, but reported the payment of monthly wages to the management member, so it was known that the permission of the court was obtained through the management member.

The Defendant, from February 2013 to August 2013, 2013, was aware that the Defendant, while paying wages that were not paid to the Defendant and Q, reported to managing members, and obtained permission from the court through managing members.

The fact that the defendant concludes a joint operation agreement with H Co., Ltd. to attract investment funds and conclude a contract for the construction of artificial expansion room with I Co., Ltd. was to recover the above F Hospital and did not intend to cause damage to the contracting party.

The Defendant, as the representative of the said F Hospital, paid KRW 5,00,000 out of the wages of KRW 10,000,000 from May 27, 2013 to August 30, 2013 by the J, who served at the said hospital, as the principal of the said F Hospital, to the amount of the Defendant’s delayed wage is KRW 5,00,000.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding a guilty of all the remaining charges except for the violation of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, No. 4 attached Table 4 of the judgment of the court below.

In light of the fact that G retired in the middle of two months and the wages paid to the Defendant and Q were recovered, that the Defendant committed the instant crime while making efforts to normalize the operation of the said F Hospital, and that there was no history of punishment exceeding the fine imposed by the Defendant, etc., the lower court’s sentence imposing fine of KRW 6,00,000 is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake, the Defendant.