1. The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The Defendant pays 72,640,229 won to the applicant for compensation.

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The sentence of the first instance judgment (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) against the accused in the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unfasible and unreasonable.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the amount of damage caused by the crime in the judgment, the prosecutor’s assertion that the sentencing of the judgment of the first instance, which sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with labor for a relatively short period and the suspension of the execution thereof, is not feasible.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant specifically stated in the judgment of the first instance court, it appears that the actual damage of the victim is not a relatively large amount (Evidence No. 410 of the evidence record) and the circumstances in which the defendant appears to recognize the actual damage amount of the victim (Evidence No. 389, 409, 410 of the evidence record), the sentencing sentencing point of the court of the first instance has been fundamentally erroneous.

It is difficult to deem that the assessment of sentencing conditions has reached the degree of confluence.

It cannot be deemed that fundamental changes have occurred in sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court. Considering all the circumstances and results of the instant crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., and the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the sentencing of the first instance court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too unfeasible.

2. An applicant for the determination of compensation regarding an application for compensation in the trial shall seek a compensation order in full for the amount of damage caused by occupational embezzlement as indicated in the judgment of the court.

According to the records, the amount of embezzlement recorded in the facts of crime has been returned and repaid for a long time, and the fact that the amount of embezzlement has been unpaid to the applicant for compensation is 72,640,229.