All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s respective unfair claims for sentencing.

In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance that: (a) the Defendant embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 372,60,00 by taking advantage of circumstances where the Defendant was working as the deputy head in charge of accounting of the victimized company, etc.; and (b) the Defendant could have acquired a considerable portion of the amount of the above embezzled amount in light of the relevant criminal law and the content thereof; and (c) the Defendant appears to have acquired it.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against the defendant, that the defendant has no record of punishment other than the one-time fine, and that the defendant paid approximately KRW 230 million out of the embezzlement, and that the money deposited in the Bank pro rata account would not raise an objection as to the recovery of the victim.

The court below determined a sentence in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions different from that of the court below in the first instance.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, equity with similar cases, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment does not seem to be unfair because it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or is too heavy.

The argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is all rejected.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is groundless.