2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the Defendant, while working as an employee of the victim corporation D, consumed the cost of urban gas kept in custody for a period of nine months at will for personal purposes, and there is no effort to recover the Defendant’s damage up to the trial even though the amount of embezzlement was not stated as approximately KRW 57 million, and there is no effort to recover the Defendant’s damage; even if the Defendant’s business allowances, etc. are offset by the amount of embezzlement of this case between the victim and the Defendant, the damage exceeding KRW 40 million has not been recovered.

However, in full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for the crime and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable, and it is not determined that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable, in so doing, by taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant has led to the confession of all the crimes and reflects the mistake; (b) there was no identical criminal record to the Defendant; and (c) there was no previous criminal record other than twice in violation of the Road Traffic Act.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.