The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in the judgment below, the part of KRW 37,229,640 in total, 37,229, and 640 in total, 3-5, 8-12, 17, 19-23, 29-23, 29-3, 36-43, 47-53, 55-64, among the crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in the judgment of the court below, among the crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in the judgment below, is used for the damaged company, such as the cost of construction of the interior floor of the victimized

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine can acknowledge the fact that the Defendant embezzled all the amount entered in the crime in the lower judgment for business purposes, including the sum of KRW 3-5, 8-12, 17, 19-23, 29-3, 36-43, 47-53, 55-64, and total sum of KRW 37,229,640, as stated in the judgment of the lower court.

The decision was determined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence examined, the lower court’s determination of facts is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

B. The Defendant returned 30 million won out of the amount of damage to the victimized company, and paid 4 major insurance premiums of the victimized company as an individual.

However, the Defendant used money and corporate cards of the victimized company for a more than one year for personal purposes while performing duties such as fund management of the victimized company.

The amount of damage has exceeded KRW 100 million, and the substantial part of the amount of damage has not been restored.

In full view of the various circumstances, including the above circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court after the judgment, the sentencing of the lower court is not unfair.

3. The appeal by the defendant is justified.