A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, who is engaged in the business of purchasing, etc., for the victim, embezzled the sales proceeds of USD 408,864 (the amount equivalent to KRW 457,273,497) kept by the Defendant on behalf of the victim, and the case was significant in light of the amount of damage. The Defendant’s continued punishment is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant was found to have committed a crime in the first instance, and that the defendant was the first offender who had no criminal record is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the motive and background of each crime including the above circumstances, the method and consequence of each crime, the conditions of sentencing, including the circumstances after each crime, and the scope of recommended sentences in the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court (one year to three years of imprisonment) / [the scope of recommended punishment] 2 types (one year to five hundred million won) (one year to three years) and the basic area (one year to five years of imprisonment) and the criteria for suspended execution (in cases where negative factors: agreement and substantial damage are considerably high), the sentence determined by the court below is within an appropriate scope.

Therefore, it is difficult to view it as unfair because it is too heavy or unfasible.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.