2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The defendant shows an attitude against the recognition of the instant crime, the defendant deposited KRW 20 million for the victim, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, while working as an employee in charge of accounting of the victim company, the Defendant embezzled KRW 355,52,976 in total for a period of up to three years. In light of the details of the instant crime and the amount of damage, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not easy.

Most of the damage was not restored to the son's post.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and trial process, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it was too excessive.

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