The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. While an ex officio examination of the part of the occupational embezzlement under Paragraph (2) was prosecuted as a crime of occupational embezzlement, the act of using the corporate card for an individual purpose regardless of its business constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust, and the crime of occupational breach of trust and the crime of occupational embezzlement are identical to that of property crimes based on a fiduciary relationship, and there is no difference in seriousness as prescribed in the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8095, May 26, 2006). Since there is no particular disadvantage to the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, the crime of occupational breach of trust is recognized without changing the indictment following pleading.

B. Examining and examining various circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant engaged in the business of managing corporate cards at the accounting team of the victimized company and used 250 million won for the personal purpose of the Defendant, including gambling regardless of his/her corporate card, and that the amount of the crime is heavy and not high, and that no agreement has been reached with the victim up to the trial, etc., which are conditions for sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, occupation, environment, etc., the lower court’s sentencing should be too too too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, the second five criminal facts in the judgment below are “2. Occupational Breach of Trust”, and the first ten to one1 “the victim embezzleds the victim’s funds” was “the equivalent pecuniary advantage, and the victim acquired the equivalent pecuniary loss equivalent to the same amount,” and the applicable column of the law is applicable.