2. The instant crime is an embezzlement of money exceeding KRW 700,000,000,000,000 to which the Defendant was in charge of funding affairs of the victim company.

The Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected his mistake.

In the case of a defendant, there is no other punishment force except for punishment of a fine of one million won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Since the victim company received the decision of provisional seizure of the claim to return the deposit equivalent to KRW 320,000 of the defendant's KRW 320,000,00 of the amount of embezzlement is likely to be returned later.

There is a family to support the defendant, such as who is suffering from mental illness.

Such circumstances are the circumstances that would be favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, examining the criminal law of this case, the nature of the crime is not good.

The Defendant consumed most of the embezzled amount for private purposes, such as repayment of the Defendant’s debt, deposit money, and purchase of vehicles, etc., and did not actually recover from damage up to now.

The victim company is getting strong punishment against the defendant.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of these circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances, and result of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.