All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair form of punishment)’s sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine both the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

The fact that the defendant has led to the crime of this case, and that part of the damage (10 million won) appears to have been restored is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the amount embezzled by the defendant (21.6 million won) is not much, that the victim wants to punish the defendant, that the defendant was placed in the preference of the suspended execution due to the same kind of crime under similar veterinary law, and that the defendant again committed the crime of this case during the suspended execution period, even though he was sentenced to a fine again during the suspended execution period, and thus, he committed the crime of this case again during the suspended execution period, and thus, the nature of the crime is not very good, and that it is the question that he is against the truth that he committed the crime is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., there is no change in circumstances to determine the sentence differently from the original judgment, and the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee do not provide a separate handling method for the ordinary concurrent crimes. Thus, in the instant case where certain crimes constitute the ordinary concurrent crimes, it is difficult to apply the said sentencing guidelines as they are.

However, the scope of the recommended sentence for each of the crimes in this case is as follows, and thus, it shall be taken into account.

embezzlement [Extent of Recommendation] Type 1 (100 million won) is a private document that does not constitute a charge of forging a private document that has no basic area (at least four months of imprisonment or one year and four months) (special person) [the scope of Recommendation].