A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible.

2. The judgment of the Defendant is the circumstance favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the crime as a primary offender with no criminal history, and reflects the fact that the victim’s actual damage amounted to KRW 97 million, and that KRW 53.7 million has been repaid among them.

On the other hand, the defendant has repeatedly embezzled the victim's property for about three years and embezzled the sum of 1.630 million won in total, and there is a great possibility that the contents of the crime and the method of the crime are against and criticized, such as embezzlement of the victim's property and embezzlement of the sum of 1.63 billion won in total, by using the corporation card in violation of his duties for personal purpose, thereby causing property damage to the victim's total amount of 7.9 million won in total.

The fact that the damage can be recovered, the damage has not been completely restored, and the victim is still seeking the punishment of the defendant, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of these circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing, character and conduct of the accused, the environment, the circumstances and consequences of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or too unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in entirety in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that there are no grounds.