2. The lower court determined the sentence by taking into account the following factors: (a) although the amount of damage was not so high that it did not reach a third party and did not endeavor to recover from damage; (b) the victims were punished; (c) the Defendant was led to confession; and (d) the Defendant’s criminal records

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). As pointed out by the lower court, the injury amount of the Bank of Korea was KRW 82.5 million, the damage amount of the victim I corporation was KRW 45.9 million, and the damage amount of the victim P corporation was KRW 88,90,000 (based on the amount of embezzlement). While the Defendant is led to the confession of the crime, the Defendant is also affiliated with E. Although the Defendant did not make any effort for the recovery of damage, it is doubtful that the Defendant was genuinely against E. The Defendant escaped by purchasing spophonephones, and this was also AE and at the time of investigation, this was also caused to AE (see, e.g., evidence records of the case No. 2018Da37222), and the Defendant did not have any profit in relation to each of the of the crimes in this case, but the Defendant’s motive and circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.