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 becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., punishment and punishment imposed by the court below are too heavy.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

Even in cases of multiple occupational breach of trust, when it is recognized that the damage legal interest is the same, and that the act is 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do541, Jul. 23, 2009). The above legal principle applies likewise to several occupational embezzlements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3431, Jun. 2, 2006). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below by the Health Unit, the defendant’s attempted occupational breach of trust and attempted occupational breach of trust are not only identical legal interest but also identical with the form of a single crime, and it is reasonable to deem that only one occupational breach of trust is established, and that the defendant’s occupational embezzlement also constitutes a single and continuous crime committed under the criminal intent.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the charges in this case, and determined that each of the crimes committed by each of the sequences in [Attachment], (1), (2), and (3) of the judgment below was established and all of them was concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act in view of a separate crime with substantial concurrent crimes. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

another judgment.