The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court of first instance and the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that “the Defendant is engaged in the business division of “C”, the main sales store of Cryryuri Co., Ltd., and collected KRW 588,00,00 from E, from E, around July 28, 2010, the Defendant embezzled the sum of KRW 32,007,50 for total 11 times during the period from around September 28, 201 to around September 201, from the day of the business day in Jeju-si, which was kept for the said C, using the amount of KRW 58,00 as daily living expenses, etc. while being kept for the victim.”

B. The first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted, and argued unfair sentencing. The lower court reversed the first instance judgment ex officio on the ground that the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes of embezzlement in the course of occupational duties, and sentenced the instant facts charged to five months of imprisonment, such as the first instance judgment, on the ground that the first instance court’s rate of the instant facts charged to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act was based on a single comprehensive crime.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. Even if multiple occupational embezzlements constitute a single legal interest, when it is recognized that the form of a crime is identical, and that it is a series of acts resulting from the realization of a single criminal intent, it is reasonable to deem that the act is a single crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8071, Jan. 12, 2007). In a case where a summary order has become final and conclusive with respect to a part of a crime in the relationship of a single comprehensive crime, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered for the previous crime on the basis of the time when the summary order is issued.

Supreme Court Decision 94Do1318 delivered on August 9, 1994 and Supreme Court Decision 2001Do28 delivered on December 24, 2001