A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio shall be examined ex officio.

As to the facts charged in this case, the lower court determined that the crime of embezzlement is established for each victim (the 25 customer) since the number of crimes is determined according to the number of consignment relationship, and that this is a substantive competition relation, the lower court determined that the Defendant aggravated the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act against multiple embezzlements and determined the Defendant’s punishment by adding the aggravated aggravated concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, as seen earlier, the facts charged in the instant case are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s travel agent was the victim, and the Defendant embezzled the travel amount, etc. kept on duty for the above victim’s travel agent; (b) there is no particular dispute as to the victim’s legal interest and trust relationship; (c) the Defendant was working as the employee of the travel agency; and (c) the Defendant was working as the employee of the travel agency; and (d) the method of collecting the travel amount, etc. from the customers of the instant 25 persons, such as receiving the money from the Defendant to his bank account, is not a normal way; (b) however, the clients were aware that the travel agent of the said travel contract was delivering the travel amount, etc. to the victim while entering into the contract on the travel goods provided by the travel agency (the victim is the company that acts as the broker of the travel agency, etc., and the travel agency of the said travel contract also paid the travel amount, etc. to G customers.