The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rejected the application for compensation filed by the limited liability company B (hereinafter “victim”) which is the applicant for compensation, and the judgment dismissing the application for compensation was immediately finalized as the case of application for compensation filed by the court below cannot be filed pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, despite the difference between the crime of occupational embezzlement and the part concerning occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case in the judgment rendered on May 14, 2018 (the Jeonju District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Order 201, hereinafter “the final judgment”), the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant by misapprehending the legal principles and rendered a judgment of acquittal as to the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too uneased and unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of prosecutor

A. In a case where multiple occupational embezzlements are considered to be a single legal interest, and where the form of a crime is identical, and the form of a single criminal intent is deemed to be a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, it is reasonable to view that the act is a single crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4737, Jun. 13, 2013). 2) In a case where a single and continuous criminal act was committed against the same victim for a certain period under the same criminal intent, such as fraud, each of the crimes may be a single comprehensive crime.

However, the issue of whether each crime is a single comprehensive crime is a concurrent crime, and the application of a special law that requires aggravated punishment on the basis of the amount of damage, etc. is not only different, but also it has a significant impact on the defendant until the judgment of sentencing and the statute of limitations and res judicata.