The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court: ① When the Defendant was in charge of the management of the corporate card while working for the victim company, the Defendant used the corporate card and corporate card points in violation of his duties for private purposes; ② the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed for a long period of not less than 2 years and not less than 11 billion won; ② the Defendant was unable to agree with the victim company; and the possibility that the amount of damages would not be repaid in the future is high; ② the Defendant’s confession of all of the crimes of this case; ② the Defendant did not have the history of punishment before the crime of this case; ③ the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive, means and method of the crime; and the circumstances after the crime of this case, etc., considered the Defendant’s punishment for 4 years, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant; and ③ the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, method and method of the crime of this case; and the actual amount of damages of the victim company was 1.4 billion won.

In full view of the factors and guidelines for sentencing expressed in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

Furthermore, it is difficult to find that the court below’s decision on the sentencing of the court below is unreasonable even if considering the materials presented during the court’s sentencing process, including the fact that the defendant’s additional payment of approximately KRW 123 million is 1.7 billion by determining the punishment against the defendant and in addition, the defendant’s additional payment of approximately KRW 1.3 million through the settlement of retirement allowances, etc. during the court’s trial, etc., it is unreasonable to maintain the court’s decision on the sentencing.

Therefore, the defendant.