The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant was operated at the time when the instant crime was committed by mistake of fact

D. The head of the administrative office of the convalescent hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”) did not have any criminal intent to commit any crime against the Defendant that he/she used the money to be paid as wages, etc. for any other purpose.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the determination on the assertion of mistake of facts are: (i) the head of the instant hospital where the victims were working, participating in the overall operation and management of the hospital, and appears to have been well aware of the financial situation; (ii) the instant hospital began to lose its management status since 2014 and began to delay in the payment of wages to the victims; (iii) the victims did not receive wages for a prolonged period; and (iv) the Defendant embezzled the hospital’s operating fund; however, considering the fact that there is no evidence to support this, the Defendant is sufficiently recognized to have committed the instant crime.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. It seems that the employees would have received a substantial portion of the overdue wages and retirement allowances through substitute payment or auction after the instant indictment was filed.

However, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). No new sentencing data is submitted in the trial, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court, and the circumstances in which the defendant claims for the reason of sentencing are alleged as unfair are already reflected in the reasons of sentencing of the lower court.