The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The defendant is acquitted. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The punishment of the first instance (five months of imprisonment) of the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable;

2. Ex officio determination

A. Even if multiple business embezzlements are involved in the relevant legal principles, when the legal interest of damage is the same, the form of crime is the same, and when it is recognized that it is a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, it is reasonable to view that it is a single crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do3929, Sept. 28, 2005; 84Do1139, Aug. 14, 1984). Meanwhile, in cases where a summary order has become final and conclusive with respect to part of a crime in the relation of a single comprehensive crime, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered on the basis of the time when the summary order was issued, since the res judicata effect has not been expired for the previous crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do1318 delivered on August 9, 1994, etc.). B.

In this case, the summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant is engaged in the business of “C”, the main sales store of C, and is charged with the collection of proceeds, and (b) the Defendant collected 588,000 won from E, from “F restaurant” located in Jeju-si, and used Da for entertainment expenses, living expenses, etc. from E during the period of keeping the victims G, while running the said C, he/she was consumed from Japan within Jeju-si, and then he/she used 11 times in total from around September 28, 201 to September 28, 201, and embezzled 32,07,50 won in total, as shown in Table 1 of the Crimes List of 201, which became final and conclusive on July 28, 201, by using the above summary order as daily living expenses, etc., which became final and conclusive on July 201, 201.