The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the crime of occupational embezzlement of this case, and determined that the crime of occupational embezzlement was established by each customer, and rendered aggravated aggravation pursuant to Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.

However, while the Defendant was engaged in the business of selling and collecting goods of the victim company as a business director of the victim company, the act of occupational embezzlement of this case was embezzled by either receiving goods payment in cash from the customer or receiving money from the account in the name of the defendant, and arbitrarily consuming it.

It is reasonable to see that the legal interest in damage is a single, the form of crime is identical, and it is a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, and that it is a single crime.

(1) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the acceptance of a crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen earlier, and the following is again decided after pleading.

The court recognizes the criminal facts charged as they are, and recognizes the same as they are, the criminal facts charged as concurrent crimes: Provided, That even if the legal evaluation on the number of crimes is different, it does not affect the defense of the defendant, and thus, the court may punish the criminal facts as a single comprehensive crime without any changes in the indictment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Do546 delivered on July 21, 1987, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do546, Jul. 21, 1987). [Separate] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court and the summary of evidence are the same as the stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus,