2. The judgment of the court below is reasonable in full view of all the circumstances, including the fact that the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case, the defendant deposited KRW 5 million in total in the trial process of the court below for the victim Hyundai Motor Company (hereinafter "victim Company"), the victim company appears to be able to receive part of the insurance money through identity guarantee insurance, the defendant has no criminal records of the same crime, the fact that there is only a fine, and that there is a family member to support the defendant. However, even though there are more favorable circumstances, the defendant has repeatedly committed the crime of occupational embezzlement against the victim company for a considerable period of time, the defendant has not committed the crime of occupational embezzlement and fraud, the amount of damage caused by the occupational embezzlement and fraud of this case, the recovery of damage caused by the defendant was not significant, there was no special circumstance or change that can be newly considered in the sentencing after the decision of the court below, and the motive, means and result of the crime of this case, the motive and result of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.

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

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