The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding each of the instant siren contracts are E, so the Defendant was not in the custodian’s position, and there was no intention to obtain unlawful enrichment.

Since the first instance court did not specify the amount of damage, there is an error of failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

B. Sentencing 1 Deliberation Punishment (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the custodian’s status and the Defendant alleged the same intent in the first instance trial.

The first instance court rejected the argument in detail under the title of "reason of guilt" in the judgment, and recognized the defendant's status as custodian and the intention of unlawful acquisition.

Examining closely and closely with records, the first deliberation judgment is justifiable.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The facts charged are not specified on the following grounds: (a) even if the value of the H-BEM material embezzled by the Defendant is not specified in the facts charged of unspecific charges and facts charged by the first instance court; and (b) the weight (in tonnage) of the material embezzled by the Defendant is not specified.

The judgment of the court of first instance cannot be seen as a violation of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

shall not be deemed to exist.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the amount of the H-BEM materials embezzled by the Defendant is large and the damage has not been recovered or agreed.

There is no special circumstance or circumstance that can be newly considered in sentencing after the judgment of the first instance.

In addition, in full view of the defendant's age, sex, environment, details and contents of the crime, results, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings, it is not unfair that the first deliberation sentence is too unreasonable.

There is no reason to believe that the sentencing of the defendant is unfair.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.