The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the gist of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal (e.g., the Defendant’s mistake, and the fact that Otobanes were restored to the victims and the Defendant was able to change the future damage from among the damaged items caused by the crime of occupational embezzlement in this case, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced six months to imprisonment is too unreasonable.

2. The period of the instant occupational embezzlement and theft crime committed by the Defendant is long and frequency, and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and six months in the Daejeon District Court on February 15, 2006, as well as a prison term of three years and three years in the suspension of execution on the grounds of robbery, and the Defendant was unable to recover from damage up to the trial. Considering the motive and background of each of the instant crimes, the circumstances before and after the instant crimes, the Defendant’s personality and behavior, and other various matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing, including the Defendant’s character and conduct, as indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is not determined unreasonable even in light of the circumstances asserted in the grounds for appeal, and there is no ground for appeal.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there is no ground for appeal for conclusion. It is so decided as per Disposition