사기등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
In the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the compensation order shall be revoked, excluding the applicant J.
1. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (a year and six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.
2. There is no change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing after the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, and considering the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the first deliberation sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable even considering the circumstances asserted by the defendant on the grounds of appeal.
3. Prior to the determination of the application for a compensation order, the application for a compensation order by the J applicant for the first instance court was rejected in the judgment of the first instance court and became final and conclusive.
An application for compensation filed by AI among the applicants for compensation for the trial of one party is an incidental law that has been filed after the date of the closure of argument in the trial of the party.
In addition, some of the applicants for compensation are seeking the payment of the amount of damage to the corporation B, and the corporation B withdraws the appeal while the trial is in progress, and the application for compensation order against the corporation B is in itself an incidental law.
Next, I examine the rest of the applicants' requests for compensation order.
Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that an order for compensation pursuant to the provisions of Article 25(1) intends to promote the recovery of damage suffered by a victim simply in cases where the amount of damage is specified to the direct property damage suffered by a victim by a criminal act of a defendant and the scope of liability for compensation is clear. According to Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, where the existence or scope of liability for compensation of a defendant is unclear, an order for compensation shall not be issued, and in such cases, an application for compensation shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Special Cases (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9616, Oct. 11, 2013). In this case, the victims enter into an investment contract with B, a non-defendant, and make investments therein.