2. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, who was in charge of the overall accounting of the victimized company, withdrawn cash and foreign currency equivalent to KRW 770 million from the account of the victimized company over about three years, and embezzled by consuming it for personal purposes, such as gambling funds.

There are circumstances that can be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the confession of the defendant and his reflectiveness, and that there is no criminal history.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime for a long time using trust relationship with the victimized company, the benefits acquired by the instant crime are large, and most of them are consumed in gambling funds, etc., the possibility of criticism is considerable; however, the damage recovery is not made at all, and the Defendant’s financial ability or economic situation seems difficult to expect the recovery of damage in the future, etc., the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not easy, and it is inevitable to punish him/her corresponding to the liability for the crime.

In full view of the various conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, as well as various conditions of sentencing, which are revealed in the pleading process, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the sentence imposed by the lower court appears to be within the scope of appropriate sentence corresponding to its liability, and the sentence is too unreasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion that the lower court’s punishment is too excessive and unfair.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.