The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The court below found the Defendant not guilty of embezzlement of KRW 12,250,00 among the facts charged in this case where the Defendant embezzled total KRW 35 million, and found the Defendant guilty of embezzlement of KRW 22,750,00, which is the remainder of the facts charged, on the ground that only the Defendant made an appeal on the ground of the judgment below’s unfair sentencing. The part of the Defendant’s acquittal without the prosecutor’s appeal is reversed at the trial, but was exempted from the object of the attack and defense between the parties and was virtually relieved from the object of the trial (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010, etc.). Accordingly, the court below should have determined that only the part of the judgment below’s embezzlement of KRW 22,750,00,00, which was found the Defendant guilty of the judgment of the court below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution two years, and the community service order 120 hours) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable (the Defendant asserted the grounds for appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts as well as the grounds for appeal; however, the Defendant rejected it on the first trial date of the first trial of the first instance court). 3. Determination on the grounds that the Defendant embezzled a large amount of money contrary to the victim’s trust relationship with the victim, and that the victim suffering from economic distress, the degree of illegality of the instant crime is somewhat weak.

However, in full view of other favorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime and circumstances, etc., the court below's punishment is somewhat unreasonable and unfair, taking into account the following factors: (a) the defendant has reached an agreement with the victim in the trial; (b) the victim expresses his intention not to punish separately from the agreement; and (c) the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; and (d) the defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and therefore, Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.