All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal [the sentence of the court below: one year of imprisonment, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, additional collection (defendant A), ten months of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, and additional collection (defendant B)];

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

B. The lower court: ① appears to have led Defendant A to most of the occupational breach of trust decisions by taking advantage of his position as the head of the victim’s production support team distribution team; ② the total amount of damage caused by occupational breach of trust is considerable to KRW 69,963,00; the Defendant appears to have endeavored to recover a considerable portion of damage caused by occupational breach of trust through deposit, etc.; ② the Defendant appears to have returned a considerable amount of damage caused by occupational breach of trust amount to KRW 5,00,000; ② the circumstances leading the occupational breach of trust, the amount of occupational breach of trust, the amount of occupational breach of trust, and the deposit of Defendant B, etc. are deemed to have been sufficiently recovered; and, taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime; and (b) the amount of the damage acquired by the said Defendant; and (c) the amount of the same criminal records after the crime, etc., the sentence was imposed by taking account of various circumstances indicated in the instant records and arguments.

(c)

The grounds for the lower court’s improper sentencing, as alleged by the Prosecutor, appears to have been sufficiently considered in determining the Defendants’ punishment, and otherwise changed the above sentencing conditions.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor of the conclusion is groundless, and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.