The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to Articles 32(4) and 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings in this Court, if an application for compensation is rejected, the decision of rejection becomes immediately and conclusive and is not transferred to the appellate court. However, if an appeal is filed against a conviction, the portion of the order for compensation shall be transferred to the appellate court together with the accused case.

In the case of this case, the court below dismissed the application for compensation of E and G, which is the applicant for compensation, and confirmed its part, it is excluded from the scope of judgment of this court.

On the other hand, the part accepting the remainder of the court below's application for compensation was judged by a conviction by filing an appeal by the defendant, but the defendant submitted a petition of appeal and the statement of grounds of appeal that contain no indication of grounds for appeal as to the part concerning the order for compensation to the remainder of the applicant for compensation filed by the court below, and even ex officio, it cannot find grounds for revocation

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal - The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

3. The fact that the Defendant appears to be aware of all of the instant crimes from the investigative agency is favorable to the Defendant.

Since each crime of this case is the concurrent crime relationship between the crime of occupational embezzlement and the crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in the judgment of the court below, the equality in sentencing should be taken into account when concurrent judgment is rendered.

However, this case is not highly likely to commit a crime by forging documents under the name of the court with high trust on several occasions, and using them for fraud and embezzlement.

In light of the Defendant’s occupation at the time of the instant crime and the relationship with the victims, it is sufficient to view the Act as a professional, interview, and planned crime.

The damage was not recovered even though the sum of the amount of fraud and embezzlement exceeds KRW 100 million.

The above circumstances are the arguments of the court below.