The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant took part in the act of occupational embezzlement of F, a soldier, as a non-identification. In light of the Defendant’s occupation, etc., there are circumstances such as taking into account the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s participation in the act of occupational embezzlement, and that the Defendant’s gain obtained in return for his voluntary disposition is not significant. However, in light of the fact that the crime’s personal secret act of F is actively attempted, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the lower court is heavy in view of the Defendant’s occupation, age, character and behavior, family environment, and criminal record relation.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

[However, since the part of "Article 356, Article 355 (1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act" in the part of "Article 356, Article 355 (1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting a crime of 1." in the application of the law of the court below is obvious that the defendant participated in the crime of 356, Article 355 (1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed in Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act is imposed under the proviso to Article 33 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act because the defendant has no status as a custodian in the line of duty