The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal and the period of the crime and the amount of embezzlement, the nature of the crime does not seem to be light, such as denying the crime, and the failure to completely recover damage, the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is deemed to be too unreasonable.

2. In light of the reasoning of the judgment, the court below determined the above punishment against the defendant on the grounds of the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The above circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as a reason for sentencing unfavorable to the court below are deemed to have been sufficiently taken into account when determining the punishment at the court below, and the defendant seems to have caused the crime in this case in the course of monetary settlement with the victim company with no record of crime, and there are other circumstances that could be considered in light of the circumstances, including the defendant's age, character, character, environment, motive, means, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime were committed, it cannot be recognized that the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unfeasible to the judgment of the court below.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.