2. We also examine the judgment and prosecutor’s improper claims for sentencing.

The court below sentenced one year to the extent of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee in consideration of ① the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances, ② the Defendant’s embezzlement crime of this case is likely to be criticized for the victim or C, and the Defendant’s reflects the following: (a) the Defendant’s act of embezzlement was committed in return for the Defendant’s transportation of the gold leader to Japan; and (b) the Defendant’s act of embezzlement is not appropriate in light of the method of embezzlement or the amount of embezzlement; (c) the injury of the victim was not recovered; and (d) the Defendant’s act of embezzlement was committed in return for the victim’s commission.

In light of the character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing guidelines, etc. of the defendant, even though the defendant is the age of her green age, is contrary to the recognition of the crime of embezzlement in the trial, and there is no criminal conviction exceeding the fine, while the amount of damage is reasonable, and the defendant has the power to be punished for the crime of fraud, even when considering the fact that the court below's punishment is too heavy or unreasonable, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's punishment is too excessive to the extent that he cannot escape from reversal.

3. As such, the appeal 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.