The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Although the court below should rate each of the crimes of this case as concurrent crimes of occupational breach of trust under the Criminal Act, it was punished under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the number of crimes of occupational breach of trust or violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation).

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. First, we examine the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

Defendant

In addition, the court below also asserted the same purport as the reasons for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion on the following grounds: (a) the damage legal interest of each of the occupational breach of trust in this case is the damage for which the victim E Livestock Industry Cooperatives (EFF) could not recover the loan; (b) the damage legal interest is uniform; and (c) the form of crime is identical; and (d) it is a series of acts due to the single criminal intent of the crime of breach of trust, recognizing the borrower's profit and the risk of damage to EF, and thus, it is a series of acts due to the risk of damage to EF.

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

In order to constitute a single crime by covering several occupational breach of trust, the legal interest of damage is the same as the form of crime, and the number of such multiple breach of trust can be seen as a series of acts based on a single criminal intent, and the unity and continuity of the criminal intent is recognized.