The Defendants (unfair punishment) sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (the Defendant A: the imprisonment of August and the suspended sentence of two years; the community service order of 80 hours; the imprisonment of six months and the suspended sentence of two years) are too unreasonable.

The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair.

Judgment

The defendants and the prosecutor's arguments on unfair sentencing are also examined.

The fact that the defendants recognize and reflect the crimes, there is no criminal conviction more severe than the fine, and the fact that the victims and the victims have reached a unanimous agreement with the victim is more favorable to the punishment.

On the other hand, the Defendants’ crime of embezzlement by arbitrarily disposing of the leased machines under the condition that the lease fee of KRW 315 million after concluding the lease contract remains at a level of KRW 87 million is not less than that of the crime, and only one year has passed since the crime was committed, which was agreed with the victims, is disadvantageous to the punishment.

Accordingly, in full view of the following circumstances: the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, background, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the recommended sentencing guidelines [the scope of recommending punishment] types 1 (less than KRW 100 million) (one month to October) (special mitigation] and the mitigated area (one month to October) (special mitigation), it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too weak or unreasonable.

In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the appeal by the prosecutor against the Defendants are without merit, and they are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.