Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s violation of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (guilty guilty in the judgment of the court below), the agreement on the back of this case does not relate to a substitute payment application, and the joint defendant A (hereinafter “A”) of the court below did not independently bear the operating fund of the H convalescent hospital (hereinafter “I convalescent hospital” after the modification; hereinafter “the hospital of this case”) under the back of this case, and the defendant filed a substitute payment with the court below’s joint defendant C (hereinafter “C”) under the recognition that the closure of the hospital of this case is consistent with the facts A while operating the hospital of this case. Thus, the defendant did not have any awareness that the substitute payment was solicited to receive a substitute payment or that it was made a false closure or a false report.

B) As to the violation of occupational breach of trust, the duties of the Defendant independently operating the instant hospital according to the approval of A and managing its revenues cannot be deemed as the duties of the Defendant himself/herself, and the obligation of the Defendant to settle the hospital revenues to A is limited to the obligatory obligation. The Defendant’s assignment of claims to K to the Defendant is intended to maintain and preserve hospital funds and borrow hospital operating funds from the person who asserts that the Defendant has claims to the Defendant, and it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was in breach of trust. It is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was aware that he/she suffered losses to A.) As to the violation of the Medical Service Act.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, three million won of fine, three million won of probation, and community service order, 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable and unfair.B. The prosecutor 1) the amount deposited after March 8, 2012, concerning the embezzlement of occupational duties, appears to be most of the amount deposited after March 8, 2012, and the amount deposited from February 17, 2012 to March 7, 2012.