The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentencing of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The instant crime committed by the Defendant, in collusion with the employees in charge of receiving and withdrawing money while working as the branch office of a victim-to-counter securities company, by entering false information into a futures trading for about one year, as if the funds were received in advance, as if the funds were deposited, and thus, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not weak in light of the specific contents of the crime, the method of committing the crime, and the amount of damages.

In particular, the defendant has a high possibility of criticism in that he abused the authority granted by neglecting the company's trust when he is in a position to supervise and manage the validity and legality of business affairs.

However, there are circumstances that should be favorable or considered to the defendant.

In the first instance, the victim submitted a written application to the effect that the victim company would be able to take the action against the defendant.

In the case of the remaining crimes other than the crime of May 9, 2013, the defendant voluntarily repaid the money immediately after the crime.

On May 9, 2013, the part of the crime committed by the defendant was recovered as the defendant's property was committed and the insurance money based on non-life insurance, identity guarantee insurance, etc. was paid.

There is no substantial benefit that the defendant has acquired through the crime.

The defendant voluntarily reported the facts of the crime to the company immediately after the crime was committed, and recognized the crime in the course of investigation and public trial and divided the mistake in depth.

There has been no history of criminal punishment until now.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, results, etc., all of the sentencing conditions and the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, including these circumstances, the sentencing of the lower court against the Defendant is too excessive.