The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. The sentencing of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On April 3, 2015, the Defendant’s defense counsel submitted on April 3, 2015 (Supplementary Reasons) and on April 28, 2015, the crime No. 1 through No. 19 of the crime list among the facts charged in the instant case, and the crime No. 20 through 52, and subsequent crime cannot be viewed as a comprehensive crime at intervals of each time. Thus, the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that the crime No. 1-52 of the crime list No. 1 through 52 had expired. However, even if the Defendant stated in the appellate court matters not included in the statement of grounds of appeal within the lawful period for appeal, it cannot be deemed that there were grounds for appeal as stated in the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234, Sept. 22, 1998). Moreover, this part of this case’s assertion cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal, and it cannot be viewed that the Defendant’s act of embezzlement by the Defendant was an ex officio one of a single type of crime.