The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On June 8, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two years for criminal fraud in the original state branch of the Chuncheon District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 16, 2017.

The Defendant’s crime of occupational embezzlement was committed between May 17, 2017 and August 21, 2017, and the time when the commission of the crime was commenced was prior to June 16, 2017, which was the date when the said judgment became final and conclusive. As such, the instant crime of occupational embezzlement is related to the crime of occupational embezzlement and the latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the sentence should be imposed in consideration of equity and the same.

However, since the court below rendered a sentence without considering it, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to view that even if multiple occupational embezzlements are based on the misapprehension of the legal doctrine’s assertion, if the legal interest of damage is a single, the pattern of crime is identical, and it is deemed a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, it is deemed that the act is a single crime

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3431, Jun. 2, 2006). In the middle of a single crime, even if the final judgment on a separate crime has been rendered, a comprehensive crime shall not be divided into two, and in this case, it shall be treated as a crime after the final judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2029 Decided July 12, 2002, etc.). The lower court arbitrarily embezzled the amount of money owned by the victimized company equivalent to KRW 140,348,577 on 114 occasions between May 17, 2017 and August 21, 2017 by means of remitting money from the bank account of the victimized company C (hereinafter “victim”) to other accounts, etc.