A. In fact, the Defendant’s refusal of the victim’s request for return of KRW 50 million as stated in the facts charged of this case merely rejected the Defendant’s temporary return to the victim for return of the remaining money after the completion of the fixed amount of tax imposed on the future, as long as the said money was deposited into the agricultural bank account under the name of the Co., Ltd., as long as all the said money was deemed to be the income of the said company, and thus the corporate tax, etc. therefrom is likely to be imposed. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intent to obtain unlawful acquisition of KRW

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant and the defense counsel in the court below also asserted the same grounds as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail under the title "the judgment on the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment. In light of the records of this case, the court below's aforementioned judgment is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of facts.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. The fact that there is no record of crime exceeding the fine imposed on the defendant as to the unfair argument of sentencing, and that the defendant deposited 32 million won for the victim late later, etc. are favorable circumstances.

However, the amount embezzled by the Defendant by committing the instant crime is not a large amount, and there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, and taking into account the following circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s judgment has a reasonable limitation on discretion.