Judgment

Defendant

A was aware of his position as a director in charge of the finance of the damaged clan, the advisory lawyer of the defendant B, and embezzled 2.2 million won of the clan, and in the criminal process law, the defendant A remitted part of his position to the account of the defendant B to the account of the defendant B, and the defendant B was in the way of delivering the remainder to the wife through his own account and again transmitting it to the defendant A.

Considering the direct division of the Defendants, the amount of damage, and the method of crime, the nature of the crime is heavy.

① In the case of Defendant A, the lower court determined a sentence by taking into account the following factors: (a) the final and conclusive judgment (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and occupational embezzlement; (b) imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months; and (c) Seoul High Court Decision 17 August 17, 2016; and (d) the principle of equity when a judgment is rendered simultaneously with the final and conclusive judgment; (b) in the case of Defendant B, the total amount of damage was paid to the victim; and (c) the first offender.

In full view of the anti-Sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment is determined within the scope of the discretion of sentencing, and it cannot be deemed that it is too heavy or unreasonable.

In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition