2. The judgment of the court below is more favorable to the defendant's recognition of the crime of this case. However, even though the amount embezzled for five months after the defendant entered into an employment contract with the victim C for a convenience store employment contract and the amount of money embezzled for five months exceeds 30 million won, no damage recovery has been made for three years, and the defendant continues to commit the crime of this case, even after he was found to have discovered the crime of this case from the victim C around August 2013, when he was found to have been aware of the crime of this case, and it is difficult to view the defendant as the crime of this case because the size of the embezzled money was significant, and it is difficult to view the defendant as the crime of this case due to his living and living, including two times of punishment for the crime of property, such as fraud or theft, and the defendant has been punished once as a crime of embezzlement, and in full view of all the sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environmental relationship, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the court below is too unfair.

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.