A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding the legal doctrine, has invested in I in order to recover the FF corporation by agreement with the executives and employees, and there was no intention of embezzlement and illegal acquisition.

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

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion in the judgment of the court by explaining the judgment under the title "the judgment on the defendant's assertion". The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is just in the judgment of the court and there was no error of misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles alleged by the defendant.

B. A part of the amount of money embezzled by the Defendant for the determination of the illegal allegation of sentencing was returned, and this case concerns the crime committed by the Defendant prior to the final and conclusive judgment of 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act”) on August 13, 2014, and takes into account the case and equity. However, the crime of this case where the Defendant embezzled the money to be used for the employee’s retirement allowances, etc. as the representative director of the company, and the crime of this case’s crime is not less weak, and the amount of the embezzled money is not much significant, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., are too

3. According to the conclusion, 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.