2. The following circumstances are recognized: (a) the Defendants recognized the instant crime; (b) Defendant B’s arbitrarily disposed of computer sales proceeds were used for the operation of the scene of the instant crime or for the repayment of the existing obligations of Defendant A; and (c) Defendant A did not directly participate in the disposition of computers other than approximately 15 computers; (d) Defendant A did not have the same criminal power for the Defendants; and (e) Defendant A was sentenced to a fine of five times due to a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and Defendant B did not have any criminal power over the same kind of crime; and (e) Defendant A was sentenced to a fine of five times due to a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

However, the crime of this case is an arbitrary sale of 51,249,850 won at the victim's market price stored by the defendants, and 50 parts of the computer body and monitors, each of which is considerably larger in value of embezzled property, damage has not been recovered until 2 years have passed since the crime was committed, and the damage has not been agreed with the victim. Considering the motive, method and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime was committed, the defendant's age, environment, occupation, etc., all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, and the basic area of embezzlement and breach of trust as stated in the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court (from April to April 14). In full view of these factors, the court below's punishment against the defendants is too unreasonable.

3. Therefore, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.