The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

(b).

A. Since misunderstanding of facts is a substantial remuneration, even if the arbitrary consumption was made, the intent of embezzlement cannot be recognized, and since the use of the 12 million won loan from H for the performance of E’s work and the payment was made at the fixed-line sales cost, it cannot be deemed that the fixed-line sales cost was embezzled. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of suspended execution for six months of imprisonment and two hundred hours of social service) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (as to the defendants), the prosecutor (as to the defendant), and the prosecutor, based on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant A acquired property in exchange for an illegal solicitation from the defendant B, and embezzled the victim's expenses of two million won as a repayment of debt against AD, and even if the defendant B sufficiently recognized the fact that he made an illegal solicitation and delivered property, the court below acquitted the defendant A of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. It is reasonable to view that the judgment ex officio (guilty part against Defendant A) was a single crime, in a case where: (a) ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor; (b) even if multiple occupational embezzlements are conducted, the legal benefits from the damage are uniform; and (c) the form of a crime is identical; and (d) it is deemed a series of acts resulting from the realization of a single criminal intent.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8071 Decided January 12, 2007, etc.). However, according to evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the crime of occupational embezzlement, which the defendant remitted the victim E’s market funds to H five times as stated in the judgment below, is a single legal interest.