All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence (Defendant A: fine of KRW 3 million; fine of KRW 1 million; fine of KRW 1 million) against the Defendants of the judgment of the public prosecutor’s judgment is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant B did not commit the instant crime in collusion with Defendant A.

(c)

Defendant

A The sentence of the judgment of the court below against the above defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake, namely, the Defendants’ marital relationship, Defendant B’s work experience at a financial institution for not less than 10 years, and the Defendants’ work process itself as stated in the facts charged was well known to the effect that it could be abnormal and unlawful, it did not limit the Defendants’ specific solicitation as to each act of remittance and withdrawal.

Even if Defendant B was aware of the fact that part of the money which was ordinarily withdrawn as above was used for personal use according to Defendant A’s instruction.

Since it is reasonable to see that the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. We examine the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing by Defendant A and the prosecutor; the Defendants committed the crime repeatedly over a long time; the crime of this case resulted in a large degree of external credibility of the victim, which is a financial institution; the victim did not agree with the victim; and the Defendant B did not appear to deny and reflect the crime.

On the other hand, in the case of Defendant A, there is no record of punishment except that sentenced once a fine due to drinking driving, Defendant B is the primary offender who has no record of crime, the amount of embezzlement is not large, and most of the recovery of actual damage are favorable sentencing grounds.

. The above.