All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

With respect to the punishment sentenced by the court below (eight months of imprisonment), the defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable for the defendant, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unfair.

The Defendant asserts that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts that the lower court recognized that “It is difficult to view that the damages suffered by students were actually recovered due to the failure to properly execute the said money for six years, even if the Defendant returned most of the damages after death,” as the grounds for sentencing disadvantageous to the Defendant.

The argument that the judgment of the court below contains misconception of facts about the grounds for sentencing is ultimately an assertion of unfair sentencing, and thus, it is not judged separately.

Judgment

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). We examine the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the foregoing.

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against the defendant, that the defendant has no specific criminal power except for one-time fine, that the defendant returned most of the embezzled money, and that the defendant did not want the punishment against the victim is favorable to the defendant.

Meanwhile, the crime of this case was committed by embezzlement of and arbitrarily consuming tuition fees, etc. to be disbursed for educational purposes. The nature of the crime was poor, the crime of this case was committed over a longer period of six years, and its embezzlement amount to KRW 550 million, and the registration fees, etc. to be used for students was used at a place which is entirely unrelated to the students, and even if the amount of embezzlement was recovered thereafter, at the time of embezzlement.