The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (three years of suspended sentence for two years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is that the defendant, as the head of the management team at the D construction site during the period of the victim company's abortion, requested 16 suppliers from October 30, 2009 to March 30, 2012 to make excessive payments from the victim company by claiming food, equipment, materials, equipment, accommodation, removal expenses, etc., and received approximately KRW 80 million from the above supplier to receive excessive payments from the victim company, and then it is not good that the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 100 million from the above supplier company by re-returning the lost construction cost. In light of the period and frequency of the crime, and the amount acquired by breach of trust, etc., the crime is not appropriate.

On the other hand, the Defendant did not have any criminal record except when he was notified of a fine of KRW 700,000 in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Among the amount of breach of trust in this case, it seems that a considerable amount of money was used as various expenses at the construction site.

In addition, the Defendant’s breach of trust did not affect the construction cost of the supplier because the Defendant’s breach of trust caused excessive payment of construction cost from the victim company, and thus, it did not cause damage to the original contractor or the supplier, other than the victim company, because the contract was concluded by specifying the construction cost between the victim company and the original contractor, and thus, it is possible to claim payment as much as the amount.

The defendant has served in good faith for the victim company for a long time.

The defendant paid KRW 200,000 to the victim company the amount of personal use of the victim company and only agreed with the victim company.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

In addition to these circumstances, the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the activities related to the abortion.