The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

According to its adopted evidence, the court below found the defendant guilty of the embezzlement of computer body, monitors, etc. kept by the victim Korean siren Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Korean siren") and the embezzlement of computer body, monitors, traffic cards, and Mas, etc. kept by lease from the victim members SP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "S"), based on its adopted evidence, and found the defendant guilty of all of the embezzlement of computer body, monitors, traffic cards, and Mas, etc., and aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act by deeming each embezzlement act as substantive concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Where multiple assets kept by several consignment relations are embezzled by one act, several embezzlements are established by each consignment relationship, and among them, there is a relationship of commercial concurrence.

Examining the facts charged in the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant concluded a siren (lease) agreement with the victim Korean siren, and kept 24 and one monitor from the computer. The Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the victim victim members C&S, and kept 13, monitoring 41, traffic card 13, and 11 of the computer. On February 22, 2011, and embezzled it by disposing of it in a lump sum with the non-name-based business around February 22, 201, it is reasonable to evaluate such embezzlement as one act under the social concept, and each embezzlement against the victims shall be deemed as one act under the commercial concurrence relationship.

Nevertheless, the lower court deemed that each of the above crimes was in a substantive concurrent relationship, and aggravated concurrent crimes. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of embezzlement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is tried and judged again.