The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Before making a judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the court below ex officio examined the grounds of appeal, and the judgment below has the following history of reversal.

A. According to the records of this case, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) sent a copy of indictment and a writ of summons by means of serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; and (b) sentenced six months to imprisonment by conducting hearings in the absence of the defendant; (c) the defendant claimed the recovery of the right to appeal that he was unable to receive a copy of indictment, etc.; and (d) alleged to the purport that he was unaware of the fact that he was sentenced to the judgment; and (e) the fact that

If so, there is no reason to return to the court below's failure to attend the trial and there is a reason to request a retrial under the Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation, etc.

Since the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

B. misunderstanding the legal principles as to the number of crimes) Several occupational embezzlements

It is reasonable to view that the act of occupational embezzlement of this case is a single crime when it is recognized that the legal interest of damage is single, the form of crime is identical, and that it is a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3929, Sept. 28, 2005, etc.). 2) In this case, health class, and occupational embezzlement of this case are embezzled by using the liquor price kept by the defendant for a personal purpose, and the victim is the same, and the method and method of the crime are the same, and all of the circumstances of the crime are the same and the act of occupational embezzlement of this case is deemed to be due to the realization of a single criminal intent. Thus, the act of occupational embezzlement of this case is a single crime.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the lower court held that each of the instant occupational embezzlement is the Criminal Act.