The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s punishment (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution) is deemed unreasonable as it excessively fluent.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the lower court took into account the following: (a) even though the Defendant was an adviser in charge of overall construction facility management of H and affiliate companies, in collusion with L, etc. taking advantage of his/her position to administer funds for the P hotel construction; (b) the Defendant transferred KRW 3 billion out of the cost of O Housing Construction of H MM couple’s husband and wife to the victim company; and (c) the Defendant, upon undergoing an investigation by an investigative agency, attempted to reduce the amount of embezzled money through H-level countermeasures meetings.

In addition, the lower court took into account the following factors: (a) the favorable circumstances for the Defendant; (b) the Defendant returned the full amount of KRW 3 billion to the victim and the damage suffered by the victim company was fully recovered; (c) the Defendant did not have any economic benefits derived from the instant crime; (d) the construction contract for the pre-sale of the cost of the O-house construction; (e) the construction contract for the pre-sale of the cost; and (e) the decision on the method of paying the construction cost; and (e) the fact that

In addition, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned various circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, and all the sentencing factors indicated in the previous theories.

B. Such sentencing by the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account all the circumstances related to sentencing as shown in the proceedings of the instant case, and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor in the trial at the trial at the lower court are sufficiently considered in determining the sentence.

Unlike the fact that the Defendant appears to be against the Defendant’s depth in committing the instant crime through a prison life for the past four months, there is a special change in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court.