The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the lower court sentenced the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and divided his mistake; (b) the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 100 million for damages to H by the Defendant’s joint and several sureties who retired from the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd”) due to the instant case under the victim’s joint and several sureties; (c) the mother paid KRW 40 million to H; and (d) the Defendant appears to have reverted to the victim Co., Ltd.; and (c) the Defendant appears to have had no record of committing each of the instant crimes prior to the instant crimes, which is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes by forging each of the documents under the name of the Hong Congo Financial Management Bureau, the Hong Congo Syman Syman, and the KEB Bank for the purpose of embezzlement of large amounts exceeding 1.3 billion won in total through 128 times, such as withdrawing the funds of the victim company in cash for about one year and four months, and consuming consumption for personal purposes, such as entertainment expenses, and concealing the crime of embezzlement or neglect of duty.

As a person engaged in the accounting and fund management of the victim company, the method of crime is very poor by making use of an opportunity to perform his/her duties, and further, in order to conceal the crime of embezzlement, the defendant spent the crime of forging a private document and uttering of the above investigation document; the period and frequency of the crime; the amount of the crime; the amount of the damage; the motive of the crime; and in particular, the defendant spent the amount of the embezzlement of this case in full for the purchase of a master gift for entertainment expenses or entertainment entertainment services.

Considering that the statement has been made, the nature of the crime is very poor.

The defendant was unable to recover most of the damage to the victim company, and the victim was the victim.