The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the community service order80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The instant crime was committed in collusion with the Defendant and A by concluding a car lease contract for the victim Hyundai Capital and Benz C220 car, which was in custody of the said car, and embezzled the victim’s property by borrowing the said car as security to a private financial institution. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and against the mistake, and repaid damages to the victim and agreed to do so are favorable to the Defendant.

However, although a car lease contract was entered into under A under the name of the defendant, it seems that the defendant actually used the above car, and the 12 million won loaned by a private financial institution appears to have been used by the defendant (Evidence No. 100 pages), the court below seems to have determined the punishment by fully considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there is no change of circumstances that may differ from the judgment of the court below in this court, and the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court [the scope of recommending punishment: between January and October, in consideration of the punishment as a special person (the grounds for mitigation)] and other various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances of crime, means and consequence, etc., after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court

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