The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The number of crimes Nos. 1 to 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, and 31 of the crime sight table as stated in the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that the defendant was unable to pay employee contributions from the national pension as stated in the facts charged, but it is because the company was difficult to make payment of wages to the workers, and the defendant was not embezzled, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. According to each judgment of ex officio determination, on July 21, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspension of the execution of imprisonment for breach of trust at the Busan District Court on July 29, 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 29, 2009. On February 18, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspension of imprisonment for a violation of the Labor Standards Act at the Busan District Court on June 17, 201 and became final and conclusive on May 17, 20

The crime of occupational embezzlement under Articles 1-18, 20-22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, and 31 of the Criminal Code is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code between the above crime of occupational embezzlement and the crime of occupational embezzlement under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code. At the same time, one punishment should be imposed. The crime of occupational embezzlement under Articles 19, 23, 26, and 29 of the Criminal Code Nos. 19, 23, 26, and 29 of the Criminal Code is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code between the crime of occupational embezzlement and the crime of occupational embezzlement under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, and at the same time, it is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code

Therefore, even though two punishment should have been imposed on each of the above crimes of occupational embezzlement, the judgment of the court below which sentenced one fine is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to concurrent crimes.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.