The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although considering the fact that the defendant's judgment on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is recognizing the crime, the court below's imprisonment (two years) is appropriate, too unreasonable, considering the following factors: (a) the defendant's failure to employ the victim; (b) the defendant committed the crime of this case against the victim's trust during the two-year service period from one month to one month after the commission of the crime; and (c) the degree of damage is considerably significant; (d) the defendant did not have any part of recovery from damage; (e) the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim; (b) the defendant directly extracted from the crime of this case; (c) the amount brought by the defendant to the co-defendant B is larger than the amount brought to the defendant among the proceeds of the sale; and (d) other sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, the background, method and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances before and after the crime.

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

(However, the "criminal facts" in the second sentence of the judgment of the court below is clear that the "to extract purely from Cheongrified" should be corrected as a clerical error in the "to contain Cheongrified", and such correction shall be made ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.