The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant led to the crime and reflects his mistake, that there was no record of punishment for the same crime prior to the instant case, that some of the embezzled amount was paid to the lessor as monthly income, that the amount acquired from the lessee in relation to Ltel was embezzled from the lessor, and that the victims received some of the money through an auction.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant managed real estate with the delegation of the owner of studio and officetels and embezzled and embezzled and embezzled large amount of trust for a long time, the crime committed with document forgery is extremely poor, and the crime of embezzlement and defraudation is accompanied by document forgery, which is a large amount of money, but most of the criminal acts have not yet been recovered from most of the damage, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, method and consequence of the crime, etc., it is difficult to deem the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.