2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendants is a case where the Defendants embezzled approximately KRW 480 million in total, which he/she had been on duty for the victim over about five years and seven months, for a total of KRW 205 times in total, and the crime is not less severe in light of the period, frequency, and the amount of embezzlement, etc. of the crime, which is unfavorable to the Defendants.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants returned money equivalent to the amount of embezzlement to the victim; (b) Defendant A and his family hold the victim’s share of 97%; and (c) Defendant B held the remainder of 3% shares, the damage suffered by the victim is practically attributable to the damage of the Defendants; (d) the Defendants did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime; and (c) the Defendants recognized the Defendants as committing the crime and reflect their mistakes; and (d) there are no special circumstances or changes that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; and (e) there is no special circumstances or changes that may be newly considered in the sentencing following the pronouncement of the lower judgment; (b) the Defendants’ age, character and behavior; (c) the motive, background, means and method of the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime, etc.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.