업무상횡령
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (a period of one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, a period of three years of suspended execution, and a period of 80 hours) is too hot or (a) is too hot, or (b) it is too hot.
2. As stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and also appears to have been reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court.
In full view of the following circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, occupation, sex, environment, family relationship, health status, crime history and its contents in an investigative agency and court, attitude in the offense, nature, embezzlement, amount of embezzlement, motive, means and consequence of the offense, the circumstances after the offense, and the degree of recovery of damage, etc., the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too heavy or unbrupted to deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, is unreasonable.
3. In conclusion, since each appeal of this case by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.