2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). The instant crime is deemed to have been embezzled by arbitrarily using the agreed amount received by the Defendant, who was the president of the council of occupants’ representatives, on behalf of the occupants. The lower court determined a punishment in consideration of the fact that the damage was not recovered, the amount of damage, etc., and there are no new circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the method and circumstances of committing the crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime, which are shown in the arguments of the court below and the party branch, the sentence imposed by the court below is not hot within the reasonable scope of discretion.

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