The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months and the suspension of execution of two years) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the amount of the judgment embezzlement is relatively little, and the defendant has a record of having been punished several times as a property crime, etc. is disadvantageous.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime; and (c) there seems to be some extenuating circumstances to take into account the background of the instant crime; and (d) the victim was unable to punish the Defendant upon agreement with the victim; (b) the Defendant’s age and living environment; (c) relationship with the victim; (d) details and details of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

【Grounds for the Judgment of the Supreme Court which has been written] Criminal facts and summary of evidence are identical to those of the judgment below, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 355 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The sentencing condition of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions described in the "judgment on the grounds of sentencing" item.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is identical to the part of acquittal in the reasoning of the judgment below, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant conjunctive facts charged on the ground that the relevant part of acquittal in the reasoning of the judgment below is not guilty on the ground of the same reasoning.

The defendant is against the judgment below.