2. The fact that the judgment defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected it is favorable to the defendant.

However, considering the Defendant’s change in the position that caused the instant crime due to the embezzlement and management difficulties of employees, the crime is not deemed good in light of the following: (a) even if the Defendant sold high-priced lease machinery on several occasions within a short time after concluding a lease contract, and caused significant damage to the leased company; and (b) even if the Defendant did not have the ability to reduce a large number of scrap metal due to management difficulties, as if he/she had such ability, obtained a large amount of money from the victim G.

In addition, the materials that can be seen as not only the defendant did not agree with the victims but also the damage recovery does not appear, and considering the balance between the criminal punishment for other crimes similar to the crime of this case and the other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, family environment, background of the crime and the circumstances before and after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.