A. The lower court returned all money and valuables received by the Defendant to D by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced the defendant to collect additional charges. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that was sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable, which is deemed unfair. (2) The sentence that was sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, even in a case where the offender consumeds the money and valuables received from the injured party and returned the money and valuables equivalent thereto, or where the accusation was revoked due to mutual agreement, the offender shall be additionally collected from the offender (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do812, Apr. 12, 1983, etc.). Upon the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant returned KRW 3 million that he received from the Defendant at the end of June 2016 after the instant crime was committed, and in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s judgment that collected the money and valuables from the Defendant is justifiable and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of legal principles.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. In light of the background and method of the instant crime, etc., unfavorable circumstances should be taken into account in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime; (b) the Defendant committed the crime; (c) the family members to be supported; (d) the recipient of the National Basic Living Security Act; and (e) the fact that the agreement with D on April 28, 2017 appears to have been reached.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair (Supreme Court Decision 2008.).