2. The following facts are considered as favorable to the Defendant: (a) the fact that the Defendant recognized all of his/her criminal acts; (b) the Defendant surrenders himself/herself to an investigative agency; and (c) the fact that there is no same criminal record. However, the Defendant used the repair cost collected on behalf of the victim from around August 1, 201 to around October 14, 201; or embezzled the repair materials, equipment, customer consignment products, etc. without returning to the victim; and (d) intentionally interfered with the Defendant’s absence from office from around August 16, 2011 to without permission; (b) the Defendant voluntarily surrendered to an investigative agency around February 2013; (c) however, even if the Defendant was arrested from around May 14, 2013 to around October 14, 2015, the victim’s age was not recovered until the first instance trial; and (d) the Defendant’s age, age, circumstances before and after the commission’s criminal acts, as well as the motive and circumstances leading to the instant criminal acts, etc.

3. In conclusion, 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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.