The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and against his mistake; (b) the Defendant lent project funds to the Urban Environment Improvement Project Association Establishment Promotion Committee for the Victims D Area with respect to the instant crime of occupational embezzlement to the Defendant that the Defendant would not exercise the claim amount equivalent to the amount of the Defendant’s embezzlement against the said victims; and (c) the Defendant was not subject to punishment.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant fraud without being aware of himself/herself during the period of suspension of execution due to the same crime; (b) the victim of each of the instant crimes; (c) the Defendant did not agree with the victim C; and (d) the Defendant did not take any particular measures to recover damage in relation to the instant crime of occupational embezzlement; and (e) other various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, family environment, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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

[However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the deletion of "(whether agreement is reached)" in the text of 13 and 14 of the original judgment shall be corrected ex officio.