The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The total amount of damage assessed is considerable, but the degree of damage recovery is not significant compared to the total amount of damage, etc. is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant agreed with F of the Embezzlement in the first instance trial; (b) the amount or the additional payment was made to F of the defrauded F; (c) the Defendant recognized and reflected his mistake; (d) the Defendant was a primary offender; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship; (e) motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) other circumstances, which are conditions for sentencing specified in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unfair.

3. Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act as to the crime, Articles 347(1) (including frauds), 356, and 355(1) (including the occupation of occupational embezzlement and inclusive) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;