2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the determination of the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized the instant crime, and the Defendant did not have any criminal history exceeding the same kind and fine.

However, the sum of the amount embezzled by the defendant was not recovered from the victim's damage even in the name of 165,138,109, and did not agree with the victim until the trial of the party.

It causes damage recovery due to the failure to properly explain the whereabouts or use of the embezzled money.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of various conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the result thereof, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable discretion.

3. 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.