The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to view that an ex officio determination is a single crime, in a case where: (a) the legal interest of damage is the same; (b) the form of a crime is identical; and (c) the form of a single criminal intent is a series of acts resulting from the realization of a single criminal intent.

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3929 Decided September 28, 2005). However, with respect to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the crime of occupational embezzlement under Article 2(a) of the judgment of the court below, each of the above crimes is about the same person as the victim, and the defendant committed the same and committed by the defendant while taking charge of the receipt and disbursement of community credit cooperatives of this case, and the period of the crime also overlaps with a considerable portion of the time of the crime. The method of using the status of the person in charge of receipt and disbursement is also similar to one another

In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that each of the above crimes is a series of acts resulting from the realization of a single criminal intent to withdraw funds from the above treasury and embezzled for private purposes, and thus, it is a single crime.

Nevertheless, the court below judged each of the above crimes as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes of occupational embezzlement.

3. As seen above, there exists a ground for ex officio reversal as seen in the above, and the lower court deemed each of the above crimes and the remaining crimes as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to a single punishment. Thus, without examining the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, reversed the lower judgment pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and rendered a new judgment

【Reason for the Judgment of the court which has been written] Summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence, and summary of evidence recognized by the court, shall be the court below.