The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant, using the status of the head of the management planning team, embezzled the victim company four times for about ten (10) months, and consumed the entire amount of capital of the company’s fund, such as futures option investment and personal debt repayment; (b) only the amount of embezzlement was repaid, but most of the amount was not repaid, and there is little possibility of repayment in the future; (c) the Defendant was not subject to criminal punishment other than the three times of fines; (d) the Defendant’s health status was not good; (e) the Defendant’s wife paid KRW 20 million to the victim company; and (e) the Defendant’s wife transferred part of the damage, such as lending (net value 45 million won).

Considering the above circumstances and the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime occurred, even if the victim company was paid KRW 100 million through the identity guarantee insurance of the Defendant after the occurrence of the instant case, and the victim company was aware of the damage of the instant case and the Defendant’s assertion, such as the fact that the Defendant was voluntarily present at the investigative agency to the investigation agency and was investigated, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion.