The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant used the corporate card that the victimized Company received from the victimized Company for its personal purpose to inflict property damage exceeding KRW 800 million on the victimized Company; (b) the Defendant committed the crime in the course of using the corporate card that was received from the victimized Company for its personal purpose; (c) the commission of the crime was committed in a planned and repeated manner; (d) the commission of the crime was committed; (e) the amount of damage was considerably significant; and (e) the damaged Company was not recovered from the damaged Company; (b) the Defendant recognized and reflected all of the instant crimes; (c) the Defendant paid KRW 17,251,614 out of the damaged Company’s amount of damage; (d) the Defendant was a dependent; and (e) the Defendant had no record of punishment previously punished; and (e) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years and six months, taking into account the following factors: (c) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, background, motive, means and consequence of the crime;

In full view of the factors and guidelines for sentencing expressed in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

Furthermore, there are no circumstances suggesting that the lower court’s maintenance of the sentencing decision of the lower court is unfair even if considering the present materials in the course of the sentencing hearing of the court, including the fact that the lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment on the Defendant, and that the Defendant paid the Defendant an additional amount of KRW 10 million out of the damaged company’s total damages, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is accepted.