A. In light of the fact that the defendant and his defense counsel (unfair sentencing on the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below) reflects the wrongness of the defendant, that the victims received compensation for damage by transferring the assets of "Dmerck" operated by the defendant, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment before the crime of this case was committed, it is unfair that the court below’s sentence which sentenced two years of suspended sentence in August is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding the facts as to the acquitted portion of the judgment below) recognized the fact that the Defendant embezzled the sales proceeds of the household skin management machinery (LUI, hereinafter “the instant machinery”) sold by the victim corporation D (hereinafter “D”), and since the instant machinery sold in D was total of 543, the sales proceeds of the instant machinery can be calculated as embezzlement the remainder, excluding the amount used by the Defendant for D, from the sales proceeds of the 543 machine of this case.

As such, even though the amount of embezzlement by the Defendant was specified and the Defendant led to the Defendant’s confession of the facts charged of occupational embezzlement of this case, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of all the facts charged of occupational embezzlement of this case on the grounds that the amount of embezzlement cannot be specified.

2. Determination

A. The instant fraud crime committed against the Defendant and his defense counsel’s wrongful assertion of sentencing was committed by the Defendant by deceiving 20,000,000 won from the victims under the pretext of the capital for the establishment of a new corporation for the instant mechanical sales business. It is not good to say that the damage was not recovered properly, and the victims did not withdraw their intent to punish the Defendant. In full view of all the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, degree of damage, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court also takes into account the circumstances alleged in the grounds of appeal.