업무상횡령
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The main reason of appeal is that the sentence imposed on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for eight months, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
It is recognized that the defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the punishment and fine for the same crime.
However, in light of the method and frequency of the instant crime, and the amount of damage, etc., such as the Defendant’s continued to commit the instant crime, starting with the crime of embezzlement from the date when the Defendant entered the factory of the victimized person, and continuing to commit the crime even after the victim’s awareness of some crimes.
In addition, there is no special circumstance that does not actually recover from damage until the first instance trial, and there is no special circumstance that differs from the original trial.
In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of the instant case, and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.