The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Since the act of embezzlement listed in [Attachment Table 7, 10, 16 [Attachment Table 7] among the facts charged in the instant case, for which acquittal was asserted, is one of the concurrent crimes (hereinafter “the final judgment of the instant case”) committed against the Defendant, which became final and conclusive on June 28, 2016, as the crime of occupational embezzlement (the Daejeon District Court 2014Da2136, Daejeon District Court 2015No105, Supreme Court 2015Do12161, hereinafter “the final judgment of the instant case”), among the facts charged in the instant case, is one of the concurrent crimes (hereinafter “the final judgment of the instant case”). Accordingly, acquittal should be pronounced.

B) Each money entered in the list of crimes Nos. 7, 10, and 16 claiming the absence of unlawful acquisition intent is the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd”).

2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of suspended execution in the fourth month of imprisonment and five million won of fine for the crime Nos. 16 of the List of Offenses) is too unreasonable, as it is deemed that there was an intention to obtain unjust enrichment on the part of the Defendant, because it was either personally used the money for which the Defendant has been repaid or disbursed in connection with the operation of the victimized company.

B. Prosecutor 1) As to the misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the face-off part), each embezzlement act listed in 1 to 6, 8, and 9, and the final judgment of this case differs in the form of an act, and it is difficult to see that the final judgment of this case was based on the realization of a single criminal intent, it is not a single comprehensive crime, but a substantive concurrent crime. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination and key issues as to the allegation regarding acquittal are ① to 6, 8, and 9, and each embezzlement described in the table Nos. 1 through 6, 8, and 9 are recognized as having a relation to the crime of this case with the final and conclusive judgment, but ② each embezzlement described in the table Nos. 7, 10, and 16 differs from each embezzlement act listed in the table No. 1 through 6, 8, and 9.