The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, as an employee of the Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) who is in charge of the accounting of the Defendant’s funds, embezzled the money of the victimized Company repeatedly over 211 times for nine years by manipulating the account statement, etc. of the victimized Company’s funds. The nature of the crime and the method of committing the instant crime is very poor. The amount of damage caused by the instant crime reaches KRW 1.6 billion, and the amount of damage has not been recovered to the present day. N, the president of the victimized Company, who is the president of the victimized Company, was restored to the extent of KRW 50 million, which is the amount equivalent to 1/3 of the amount of damage in the first instance.

was stated.

The defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, it is favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant was waiting to commit the crime of this case, that the defendant partially repaid the amount of damage by transferring real estate owned by him at the original trial, and that the victim company does not want to punish the defendant, that the defendant expresses his intention to pay approximately KRW 10 million of retirement allowances to the victimized company in the first instance trial, and that the defendant is the first offender who has no criminal record.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, it is recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is justified.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable. Thus, Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.