The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the legal principles on occupational embezzlement are established separately by misunderstanding the victim company, the court below's judgment that recognized it as a single comprehensive crime is erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment on the number of crimes.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in view of the following: (a) the Defendant deemed to have led to the confession of all criminal facts and actively cooperated in the investigation by the prosecution; and (b) the acceptance of a bribe at the H’s request.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the record reveals that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and for two years of suspension of execution on February 17, 2016 by the Jeonju District Court on the grounds for ex officio appeal, and that the sentence became final and conclusive on January 12, 2017. As such, each of the above crimes of the judgment below against the defendant and the above crimes of occupational negligence and the crime of death by negligence, etc., for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive under Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the punishment for each crime of the judgment of the court below shall be determined in consideration of equity in the case where the judgment is to be rendered at the same time under Article 39(1)

3. Since the funds of the company that the Defendant embezzled for the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles on occupational embezzlement are different, even if the above crime had continuously been committed, it cannot be deemed a single comprehensive crime among the crimes, and separate crimes are established for each victim (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1269 delivered on September 5, 195). In such a case, the lower court punished all the above embezzlement as a single comprehensive crime, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles is justified.

4. According to the conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio and the defendant's person as to the embezzlement of occupational duties.