The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the Defendant recognized the crime and reflects the fact that the Defendant has committed a crime; (b) the Defendant has to pay back obligations for loans extended to business, etc. due to the instant crime; (c) the Defendant partially repaid the amount of damage; and (d) the Defendant has no record of committing a crime other than a fine once, the lower court’s punishment (five years of imprisonment, additional collection, and provisional payment order) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The crime of this case is an official who manages the special accounting budget of educational expenses in the victim Jeju Special Self-Governing Do, and is a public official (accounting-related personnel) in a high school with knowledge that the budget would inflict losses on the victim, and embezzled the budget of the above duties by using the budget for personal purposes, and forged the official document or electronic records as means thereof, and uses the following documents by forging the official document or preparing a false official document.

Not only a large amount of the budget embezzled by the defendant is 500 million won in total, but also the defendant's crime is likely to lead to a public loss due to the poor financial standing of local governments.

Moreover, the damage caused by the instant crime was not restored to a considerable part.

In addition, considering all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and theories of the instant case, including the background, content, means and result of the instant crime, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair on the ground that the lower court’s punishment was unlimited (the favorable circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal appear to have been already considered in the sentencing of the lower court, and the lower court did not submit new sentencing materials to the extent that the sentence of the lower court is reversed in the first instance trial). Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit.