2. Although there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the amount of damage caused by the Defendant’s instant crime was not so significant, the fact that the investigative agency, the lower court, and the court of first instance showed the attitude of congrating the commission of the Defendant’s criminal act in substitution for one’s own criminal act, but did not recover from the damage up to the trial. The crime of embezzlement and fraud of this case, etc. are in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment should be determined in consideration of equity in the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. The sentencing of the lower court seems to have taken into account all favorable circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that may differ from the above favorable circumstances; the Defendant’s age, character, character and environment, occupation, power, the background, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, are too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.