The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. In light of the purport of the grounds for appeal (alongly unfair) and the fact that there is no record of the same kind of crime, the sentence imposed by the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is a situation under which the Defendant, while working as a business member of the victim C Co., Ltd., released products from May 8, 2012 to July 14, 2012 under the pretext that he/she would deliver the products to the Basbbing Services Co., Ltd. from May 8, 2012, and embezzled the products owned by the victim 78,69,181 won in total on 49 occasions by arbitrarily disposing of them to the wholesaler, etc., and thus, embling large amount of products with the victim’s confidence is a bad and unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, in light of all the circumstances such as the defendant's age, health condition, character and conduct, and circumstances before and after the crime, it seems that the defendant committed the crime of this case by contingently in mind that he would have committed the crime of this case, the defendant paid KRW 20 million to the victim in Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and the defendant paid KRW 9.9 million to the victim in addition to the victim's amount of damages due to the settlement of the defendant's retirement pay, etc. in the trial, the victim's partial recovery of damages was made, the defendant led to confession and reflect in depth from the beginning of the investigation, the defendant was only one time before and after the crime of violence was committed, and there was no same criminal history, and the defendant did not have any other criminal history, the defendant's above assertion is deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is based on Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is justified.