The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The acts of paragraphs (1) through (4) in the table of crime (3) in the judgment of the court below and the acts of paragraphs (5) and (5) are different from the acts of paragraph (6) and do not constitute an inclusive crime.

Therefore, the statute of limitations has expired with respect to the acts in paragraphs 1 through 5 (the act in breach of trust from April 30, 2004 to April 10, 2006) in the list of crimes (3) in the judgment of the court below.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) If, even if multiple occupational breach of trust were to be committed, the legal interest of damage is a single and the form of crime is identical, and if such multiple occupational breach of trust can be deemed to be a series of acts based on a single criminal intent, such multiple occupational breach of trust constitutes a single crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do810, Jul. 9, 2004). 2) Examining the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the act of breach of trust in this case is deemed to be a single legal interest and a series of acts based on a single criminal intent, and thus, it shall be deemed to be a single comprehensive crime.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to blanket crimes.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) The act of breach of trust in this case is used as a means to conceal the crime committed by the Defendant at will when the sale price of stocks is deposited in the securities account of the victimized company by selling at will the F and M&P stocks held by the Victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "victim E Co., Ltd.").