The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if multiple occupational embezzlements are conducted, when the legal interest of damage is a single, the form of crime is identical, and 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, inclusive.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do9755 Decided February 29, 2008; 2005Do3929 Decided September 28, 2005, etc.). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for occupational embezzlement at the Daegu District Court on June 24, 2010, and that the judgment became final and conclusive on July 2, 2010. Since the charge of the above final judgment and the charge of this case committed before the final judgment, among the charges of this case related to N, X, and G, the part of the crime of occupational embezzlement in attached Table 3 of the crime list in the judgment of this case committed before the final judgment and each series of legal disputes related to N, X, and G, the res judicata effect of the above final judgment affects the above charges, and therefore, it is justified to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the judgment of first instance.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on comprehensive crime of embezzlement.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment below, but there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and there is no statement of the grounds for appeal in the appellate brief.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.