A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The punishment (six months of imprisonment) imposed on the accused by the court below is too unreasonable.

Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, it is reasonable to see that the legal interest of damage is uniform, the form of crime is identical, and that it is a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, as a whole, if it is recognized that the act is a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3929 Decided September 28, 2005). However, in the case of this case, the defendant, the director general of the finance division of the victim C in charge of managing and executing the funds of the victim, withdrawn money from the bank account of the victim 57 times in total from December 30, 201 to August 1, 2013 and consumed it for the victim's own cost of living expenses. This can be evaluated as a series of acts arising from the realization of a single criminal intent to embezzled the public funds of the victim he/she managed in order to raise a cost of living. Since the victim's embezzlement stated in the criminal facts (including the list of crimes) in the judgment of the court below is considered as one crime by combining all the act of embezzlement of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's act of embezzlement in this case is a separate crime and the punishment is imposed accordingly. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and in this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the following is again decided after oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and facts charged by the defendant and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court shall be the gist of the evidence.