2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

3.However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

2. The fact that the Defendant did not settle the premium and the lease deposit received from the transferee while transferring the coffee specialty store that the Defendant had engaged in the same business with the victim at his/her discretion and did not use it in the nature of the crime. Nevertheless, the Defendant agreed with the victim or did not compensate for the damage is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant appeared in the court at the time of the trial and recognized the commission of the crime; (b) there is no same power as the Defendant; (c) the Defendant has been sentenced to fines twice; and (d) the amount of the embezzlement of this case was originally to be settled between the Defendant and the victim; (b) the actual amount of damage to the Defendant is less than the amount of the embezzlement; and (c) other factors of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case are considered as inappropriate.

3. The judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is also ruled as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and the facts charged by this court and the summary of the evidence are as follows: 1. The summary of the evidence added "the defendant's trial testimony" to the summary column of the evidence, and it is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution ( normal consideration in favor of the defendant in the front);