The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, probation, and community service order of 120 hours in 6 months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant has embezzled money repeatedly for a considerable period of time in relation to his duties, and that the amount embezzled is not certain, in particular, when the Defendant was indicted and tried for the same kind of crime, and again repeated the instant crime, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not weak. However, it appears that there are some circumstances to consider the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime and his mistake in depth, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, and there is no penalty force exceeding the fine prior to the instant crime. Since the instant crime is related to the crime of occupational embezzlement and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, equity between the instant crime and the crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in the first head of the instant crime as indicated in the judgment of the lower court is to be considered at the same time, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, the Prosecutor’s assertion that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable is unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor'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.