The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, who was in charge of the management of the company’s funds, etc., by embezzlement of the company’s public funds for a long time, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are considerably good.

approximately KRW 690,000,000,000 due to the instant crime, out of the amount of damage KRW 730,000 due to the instant crime, was not recovered.

On the other hand, the Defendant was punished by a fine once as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving Driving) is the entire record of the crime, and is in depth against the Defendant, such as recognizing the instant crime.

The injured company has made efforts to recover damage by repaying the degree of KRW 40 million to the injured company, and the injured company has agreed with the injured company on the condition that civil liability is separately borne by the injured company.

It is relatively clear that the social relationship is relatively clear, such as family members' desire to live in the defendant's wife.

B. The sentencing guidelines established based on the Act on the Organization of the Court provides that “the person who committed the act” shall be evaluated as “the person who committed the act” in order to realize “the principle of liability for the act”, which is the major principle of sentencing (see, e.g., “quality classification of sentencing factors” in the sentencing committee, sentencing sentencing guideline “3. type and sentencing guidelines”) and in some cases of the crimes, such as embezzlement embezzlement breach of trust, it shall be assessed equally with the person who committed the act in consideration of the importance of the victim’s non-existence of the punishment.

However, it is clear that this does not mean that it can be evaluated as a sentencing factor that could be evaluated more easily or that a sentencing factor that may suppress other sentencing factors, by recognizing a significant exception to "the principle of liability for act", which is a major principle of sentencing, is not a factor that is not a victim's punishment.

In light of this point, “A person who is an act of “the victim’s wishes not to punish the victim, such as embezzlement.”