The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 25,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in this case, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, who is the president of the I Institute, arbitrarily used school expenses at the attorney's expense, such as a lawsuit to which the I Institute is a party (attached Form 1), on the ground that the victim is single, trust relationship and criminal intent are single, and thus constitutes a single comprehensive crime. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the statute of limitations has expired for each crime (attached Form 1 No. 1-17) from July 6, 2005 to February 27, 2007 on the ground that it is a substantive concurrent relation.

2. Determination

A. Even in the case of multiple occupational embezzlements by relevant legal principles, when the legal interest of damage is uniform, the form of crime is identical, and it is recognized as a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, it is reasonable to view that the act is a single crime by universal title.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3929, Sept. 28, 2005).

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the following facts charged: (a) the Defendant used KRW 143,646,99 in total on 25 occasions in the name of attorney-at-law in charge of the examination of a teacher’s petition, administrative litigation, civil litigation, criminal litigation, criminal case, etc., against the President of the International Institute of Research and Development, as the president of the International Institute of Research and Development who established, operates, manages, and managed HA; and (b) from July 6, 2005 to December 14, 2007, the Defendant used KRW 143,646,99 in the amount of KRW 25 times in the name of an attorney-at-law at HA.

C. The lower court determined that each of the occupational embezzlements listed in the annexed Table 1 among the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a case where the statute of limitations has expired for the following reasons: (a) deeming that the crime of occupational embezzlements listed in the annexed Table 1 among the facts charged in the instant case is not recognized as having the unity and continuity of the criminal intent; and (b) deeming that the crime of occupational embezzlements listed in the annexed Table 1 constitutes a substantive concurrent relationship; and (c) thereby