The judgment below

The part of the defendant B, excluding the part of the application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant

B. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by the prosecutor, the criminal facts of Defendant B’s occupational embezzlement on April 10, 2013 are sufficiently recognized.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the following circumstances: (a) Defendant A embezzled more than KRW 1 billion in total for a four-year period by taking advantage of having overall control over overall affairs, such as the operation of the victim company and fund management, while working as the auditor of the victim company; (b) Defendant A embezzled the amount exceeding KRW 1 billion; (c) considerable part of the amount was used as gambling funds, etc.; (d) did not reach agreement with the victim company; (e) Defendant did not make any effort to recover damage; (e) Defendant led to three-time criminal records; (c) Defendant led to the confession of the fact of the crime; (d) Defendant reflects his mistake; and (e) there was no criminal record exceeding the fine; and (e) taking into account other favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, health conditions; (e) details of the crime; and (e) the scope of punishment recommended by the Supreme Court Commission (two to five years) by imprisonment with prison labor; and (e) Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for two and a half years.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

B. The lower court’s determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts 1) The lower court: (a) in the prosecutor’s investigation, Defendant A made a statement to the effect that “I would like to have a low-priced car from Defendant B purchased a beer cruise car in order to replace the low-priced car with another car”; (b) Defendant B would have gone through consultation with Defendant A, a substantial operator of the victim company, in selling the above high-priced car; and (c) Defendant B paid KRW 18 million to the victim company on September 27, 2012. In this regard, Defendant A prosecution.