Each application for compensation order filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed in entirety.

The prosecutor indicted the Defendant with the intention of Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and “the Defendant acquired each money,” but the Defendant is the owner of the instant house and the mother of the lessor, who is the lessor, delegated management duties such as lease of the house from J, and acquired the property by fraud even according to the evidence.

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act does not apply to the defendant, since it cannot be deemed that the defendant obtained financial benefits or pecuniary benefits.

However, among the facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged based on evidence, there is a difference in the legal evaluation to which each victim’s property or property gains from the disposal of property belongs, and it is within the scope recognized as identical to the facts charged. In light of the contents and progress of the trial examination in the instant case, even if the defendant is found guilty of facts constituting a crime acknowledged by evidence, there is no risk of causing substantial disadvantages to the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense. Thus, the mere fact that the defendant did not punish the defendant solely on the ground that he/she did not acquire a direct benefit is obviously contrary to justice and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do4419, Nov. 22,

Of the facts charged, it is found that J acquired pecuniary benefits from the obligation to return the lease deposit, which has been borne by the former lessee L, as part of the amount of money equivalent to the deposit money for the victim D, to the extent that it does not pose a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right of defense, such as making it reasonable to recognize the facts charged without changing the indictment.

The defendant, on 206.