The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the court below judged that the act of occupational embezzlement in this case is an inclusive crime, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles since it judged it as concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

Even if multiple occupational embezzlements are conducted, when the legal interest of damage is a single, the form of crime is identical, and it is recognized that it is a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, it is reasonable to view that it is a single crime, inclusive.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3929 Decided September 28, 2005, etc.). The facts charged in the instant case are as follows: (a) the Defendant, working for the director of the accounting division of the victimized company from around 2002 to April 2014, managing funds, such as bank account management of the victimized company, revenue and expenditure management of the victimized company, etc.; (b) operated the electric fee table from July 201 to December 201, 201; (c) purchased merchandise with the corporate card kept by the Defendant with the corporate card, discounted the purchase of merchandise; and arbitrarily consumed rent; and (d) embezzled the funds of the victimized company in the course of business; (c) although the act of occupational embezzlement was allowed, it is recognized that the legal interest of the victimized company is both the property right of the victimized company; and (d) the Defendant committed a series of acts attributable to a single criminal intent that embezzled the funds of the victimized company.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case should be deemed to be constituted with a single crime of occupational embezzlement, so the defendant's above assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the defendant's appeal is again ruled

Criminal facts

(b).