The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the first, second and second crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the crime No. 1-A and B in the judgment of the court below constitutes a single comprehensive crime, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (Article 1-A, B, 2 of the original decision: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months, 1-C, 3-C: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the event that a number of occupational breach of trust claims are judged as to the misapprehension of legal principles, if legal interests are single and the form of crime is the same, and where several acts of breach of trust can be deemed to be a series of acts based on a single criminal intent, such multiple acts of breach of trust constitute a single crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do541, Jul. 23, 2009). In the case of the crime of Article 1-A and (B), the victim is a fiduciary relationship with Co., Ltd., with a single contract for supply in the name of the victim, and in the case of the crime of Article 1-A of the judgment below, the method of committing a single crime of violation of trust to be returned by the defendant after making a contract for supply in the name of the victim, and in the case of the crime of Article 1-A of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that each of the above crimes of breach of trust occurred during the period from December 29, 2015 to January 6, 16.

As such, the judgment of the court below is partly erroneous, but such illegality does not change the scope of punishment by law, and thus, the judgment of the court below is also rendered even if the crime No. 1-A and B is a single comprehensive crime.