The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below should be acquitted on the grounds of the relation between occupational embezzlement for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive. 2) The manager of the F building in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant building”) concluded a lease contract by G not by the defendant but by G to receive the rent, and the defendant did not receive the rent from the lessee of the instant building or used it for personal purposes.

B. The sentence of one-year imprisonment imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in the judgment of the court below for ex officio determination is committed in collusion with G while it serves as a manager of the instant building while G serves as a single and continuous criminal intent, and the damage legal interest also constitutes an inclusive crime.

However, under the premise that separate occupational embezzlement is established by each lessee, the court below aggravated concurrent crimes by deeming that each lessee has substantive concurrent crimes and determined the scope of punishment. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to a trial at the court.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the records on the allegation of acquittal, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment on May 18, 2012 with prison labor for three years and six months for the criminal facts that included the crime of occupational embezzlement against C, the same victim as the instant case, and the fact that the said judgment was finalized on April 11, 2013 (Seoul Northern District Court 201Gohap402), and that the content of the crime of occupational embezzlement was embezzled by consuming the rent received from the lessee for personal purposes similar to the instant case.

However, the above crime of embezzlement has become final and conclusive.