The defense counsel's written opinion argues that the defendant used 5 million won as expenses for the establishment of a corporation, 1 million won deposited by the defendant according to D's instructions, and 7.5 million won, which the defendant and D deceiving the victim C by deceiving the victim, should be excluded from the amount of embezzlement of this case, 48.5 million won. However, according to each of the evidence of this case, the facts of embezzlement of the defendant by arbitrarily using 48.5 million won for the purpose of purchasing the transport permit from the victim C can be fully recognized.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment recognizes the Defendant as substitute for the instant crime, the Defendant’s performance of the duty of establishing the next notice upon the victim C’s request, and the Defendant has no record of punishment until now, and the Defendant’s relatives want to have the prior notice against the Defendant.

However, the Defendant’s embezzlement in the crime of this case did not amount to 48,50,000 won and did not recover from damage. The Defendant, even before committing the crime of this case, may have the record of criminal punishment for the crime of this case, such as embezzlement under the Act on the Acquisition of Trucks, which arbitrarily uses after receiving money in the name of the purchase cost of the truck license plate, and being sentenced to suspended sentence of imprisonment, etc., and the Defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he was under suspension of execution due to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the crime of this case under suspension of execution due to embezzlement. In particular, even while being tried for the crime of this case, the Defendant continued to commit the crime of this case, and all other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment