2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, who is a managing director of the victimized company, claiming for personnel expenses against the victimized company, and the Defendant, who is a part of the claim, took up approximately KRW 32 million.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. as shown in the deliberation of the court below and the party concerned, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unfeasible.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.