A. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is against himself and the circumstances of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The fact that the sum of the amount acquired by deception or embezzled by the Defendant is more than KRW 160,000,000, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime while being tried at the appellate court due to the occupational embezzlement for which the judgment became final and conclusive, the nature of such crime is not good, and that the Defendant did not endeavor to recover damage, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the instant crime may be tried along with the occupational embezzlement for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, consideration of equity with the instant crime should be given to the Defendant. As the management status of the clothing store operated by the Defendant worsens, the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant crimes. The Defendant appears to have been able to recover partial damages of the said company as the deposit amount of KRW 30 million paid to the said company when entering into a contract with G Co., Ltd.

In full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments in the instant case, including the above circumstances and other circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate, and is too heavy or too unreasonable. Thus, the argument that the Defendant and the prosecutor’s unfair sentencing were unfair is without merit.

3. The appeal of this case by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That the "one year of suspended execution" of the first 16 acts and the second 18 acts of the judgment of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "two years of suspended execution", and thus, it is ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.