The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts charged in the instant case concerning acquittal of the Prosecutor’s First Instance are as follows: “The appointment of a defense counsel was made separately in criminal proceedings, such as the investigation, appeal investigation, summary judgment, and formal trial against the Defendant with L, which the Defendant had been under custody, and the expenses for the appointment was paid.” The Defendant’s own District Court’s final judgment of occupational embezzlement No. 2012No938, and each substantive concurrent relationship exists with the final judgment of the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the first instance court's conviction Nos. 1 through 5 of the charge of a final judgment and the charge of this case.

8. The judgment of acquittal was rendered on each of the facts charged in the above part, considering that each of the crimes described in the above is in the relation of a blanket crime. There is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of

2) The sentence of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing (fine 4 million won) is deemed unfair and unfair. (B) Of the instant facts charged, the part on Defendant 1’s conviction Nos. 9 through 11 of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the guilty portion is that “the Defendant paid the counsel fee in the appellate trial and the final appeal procedure with L money,” and both the number of crimes Nos. 1 through 8 of the list of crimes, the criminal intent, the legal interest and the attitude of crimes are the same.

Therefore, since all of the facts charged in this case are related to the facts charged in the final judgment and the crimes inclusive, the judgment of acquittal should be rendered to the defendant in accordance with the res judicata of the final judgment.

Nevertheless, the first instance court found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the number of crimes of occupational embezzlement.

2 The 1st sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The issues of the instant case and the order of determination, the first instance court in the method, and the first instance court in the attached list No. 1 to the list of crimes.

8. Each of the crimes described above (an overall crime), ② the crimes listed in the same order 9, 10. Each of the crimes (an overall crime) and ③ the crimes listed in the same order 11. Each of the substantive crimes (a simple crime).