The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. The crime of this case was committed under the name of the victim company in which the defendant transferred money from his account to his own name, and embezzled a large amount of corporation funds exceeding 3.6 billion won by arbitrarily using them in stock transaction, etc. In light of the method, period, and scale of damage, etc., the crime of this case was committed, and the victim company suffered considerable property loss due to the crime of this case. The actual damage has not been recovered up until now, and the victim company is punished against the defendant.

On the other hand, after the crime of this case occurred, the damage of the damaged company itself can be deemed to have been recovered as a result of the major shareholder of the victimized company's contribution to his own property and repayment of the damage amount to the company instead of the defendant. Around 2007, the defendant was ordered by the representative director of the victimized company to harm the futures trading with the funds of the victimized company, and the defendant began to conduct futures trading in public at the office of the victimized company, but there was no expertise in futures trading, but the defendant was considered to have continued to suffer loss. Accordingly, since the defendant extended the scale of trading to recover the loss and got losses to the transaction of high-risk financial products, the damage amount seems to have come from a net formula. The defendant reported the end of the case to the victimized company on his own around October 2009, but the defendant reported the end of the case to the victimized company on his own, but it finished the case by means of retirement measures, retirement allowances, etc. against the defendant and its upper-line manager. However, the tax authority is expected to impose tax on the above large shareholder's's property contribution.