The punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible.

Judgment

The defendant and the prosecutor's arguments are also examined.

Although the crime of this case is the general duty of the victim's clan, it is not clear that the defendant has embezzled the money of KRW 150,8410,000 out of the purchase money for the land of this case owned by the victim because he violated his duty to manage the property of the victim's clan for the purpose of the victim's clan and preserve it, and there is a need to punish the defendant strictly in light of the fact that there is no change in the circumstances other than the confession made by the defendant after the decision of the court below.

However, in full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, is not deemed unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s above assertion are without merit. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the punishment of this case.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.