The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower judgment is based on the premise that the E’s monthly-class leisure time is KRW 2.7 million.

However, since E’s monthly pay was 2.5 million won, there was an error of mistake in the fact that there was an annual leave allowance and retirement allowance payment calculated on the basis of monthly pay 200,000 won among the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment (the lower court determined that the Defendant was the KRW 3 million of monthly pay E.

However, the judgment of the court below is based on the premise that E’s monthly leisure is KRW 2.7 million, and thus, the defendant’s assertion is made as above). (b) The sentence of the court below’s unfair sentencing (2 million won) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the police statement protocol, retirement allowance calculation statement, etc. against E.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and the statement of the court witness J as shown in the defendant's argument is difficult to believe, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. In full view of the overall conditions of the argument and the record of the instant case, including the circumstances favorable to the Defendant (such as having no record of crime) and unfavorable circumstances (unagreement, etc.), the sentencing judgment by the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion, in light of the following as a whole: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and intelligence environment; (b) motive means of crime; and (c) the circumstances after the crime.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s sentencing is appropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of the sentencing is also groundless.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and all of them are in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.