A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable.

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

2. The judgment of the Defendant received management expenses, etc. from the shop occupants, and arbitrarily consumed them for the victim’s Dotel management management committee, and the fact that it is not yet agreed with the victim is disadvantageous.

However, in the case of provisional seizure by creditors I of the creditor I of the Dtel management and operation council, the defendant actually secured a security for the repayment of embezzlement by depositing the amount of 26.9 million won with personal funds to cancel provisional seizure, and taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, the defendant's argument that the sentence of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable is not considered unreasonable. Thus, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.