2. The crime of this case is not likely to be committed since the defendant, while working as the head of the department in J, the defendant, supplied 177,131,00 mobile phone 236 mobile phones equivalent to the total market value of 177,131,00 won to be supplied to the injured party and sold at his own discretion to the middle and high-class seller, or entered into a contract with the injured party E and the Internet camera to sell them on consignment with the supply of the cell phone 90 mobile phone 83,675,90 won in total at the market value after he/she embezzled it to sell it to the middle and high-class seller, or entered into a contract with the injured party E and to sell it on consignment after receiving 90 cell phone 1,675,90 won in total at the victim E and embezzled it as the creditor, while he/she kept for the injured party. The defendant had a history of criminal punishment, and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. paid 20,000 won to E.

In full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the fact that the court below cannot be seen, the circumstances alleged in the grounds of appeal are already reflected in the sentencing, and there are no special changes in circumstances that may be considered in the judgment of the court below in the past, and the defendant's age, sex, sex, environment, degree of damage, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable, and therefore, the above argument is without merit.

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