2. The judgment of the court below is equivalent to 10,366,700 won, and the defendant did not make any effort to recover from damage until the trial is held (the defendant's assertion that Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. paid the amount corresponding to the above liquor price to the victim, but it cannot be presented the same as the victim's assertion that the damage was recovered), the victim also wishes to punish the defendant, and the defendant does not appear to be against the defendant (the defendant stated that the defendant is satisfing in the victim's complaint or that the occupational embezzlement is satisfing in the liquor company) and considering the various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age-oriented environment, etc., the defendant's argument is not acceptable.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.