2. The lower court determined the sentence within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s consent to the commission of the crime; (b) the Defendant deposited KRW 5 million for the damaged company; and (c) the Defendant, who is an employee of the partner company of the victimized company, stolen the materials of the victimized company that was stored in a warehouse on a total of 66 occasions; and (c) the Defendant, who was employed by the partner company of the victimized company, committed the instant crime, committed a theft of the materials of the victimized company that was stored in a warehouse on a total of 66 occasions; and (d) the nature of the crime was bad in light of the frequency of the crime; and (e) other factors indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime; and (e) other factors

The grounds for the improper sentencing (a confession, reflectiveness, life, dependents, etc.) alleged by the defendant are shown to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above conditions of the sentencing have changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant

The argument is without merit.

3. In 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.