The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) against the accused against the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Each of the crimes of this case is limited to the local government's budget, and the amount of damage is very high, the nature of the crime is very poor, and the defendant should be punished with severe punishment because it does not recover from damage.

However, in light of the defendant's health status confirmed in the course of investigation and trial as to the fact that the defendant was diagnosed four terminal cancer around January 2014, the operation of such terminal cancer is impossible, and the defendant's health status confirmed in the course of investigation, it seems that the defendant is unable to lead a normal life at present, and the execution of imprisonment cannot be reduced because he/she is infinite at any time and he/she is infinite. Thus, the defendant cannot be sentenced to a punishment for which he/she cannot be imp

If the defendant's above situation is not a situation in which it is impossible to be used by the defendant, such as continuing to repeat a crime even after he/she is investigated or tried, it is not a situation that the defendant's execution of the sentence is conducted at the execution stage, but it is not a circumstance that the defendant's execution of the sentence is conducted, and it is also considered as a main element of the sentencing so that the defendant can be deprived of tolerance within the extent permitted by the law so that he/she can be easily facing the end of the sentence at the stage of sentencing. Such a system accords

In this case, the defendant had no criminal power at all, and the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflects his depth. The defendant appears to have been faithfully entrusted D, etc. despite the difficult business conditions prior to the crime of this case. The defendant used a considerable amount of the entrustment money embezzled as operating expenses of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”). Since it was operated under entrustment, the defendant's motive for the crime of this case is considered to be one of the defendant, even if it is considered that C is one of the defendant's businesses.