The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the crime committed at least 20 times (hereinafter “20 crimes” in the annexed table of the judgment of the court below) was committed in the order of 20 crimes (hereinafter “20 crimes” in the annexed table of the judgment below, each crime is specified by the sequence), which is not a single comprehensive crime between the remaining crimes and the crime, and the crime No. 1 through 19 was charged after the lapse of 10 years from the statute of limitations, and thus, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced for the crime.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is unreasonable as the sentence was excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, multiple occupational embezzlements are called:

Even if the legal interests of damage are uniform, and if it is recognized that the form of crime is identical, and 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 Decision 2005Do3431, Jun. 2, 2006). According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below, the following circumstances may be acknowledged.

Examining these circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant committed each crime on the list of annexed crimes, which is the same kind of crime, under the single and continuous criminal intent, and that each crime on the list of annexed crimes is a single crime, including each crime on the list of annexed crimes, with the same legal interests and interests. Only the fact that the Defendant committed a crime 20 years after the 19th day of the crime cannot be viewed as different solely on the ground that there was a crime

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the defendant's allegation in this part is without merit.

① Since the Suwon District Court declared bankruptcy on March 4, 199 to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), it continued to appoint a bankruptcy administrator.

The defendant could actually access money belonging to the bankrupt estate as an assistant of the bankruptcy administrator who is engaged in the collection of claims and the receipt and disbursement of money belonging to the bankrupt estate.

The defendant.