All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The defendant shall pay the agreed medical fees of KRW 4,714,050 to the petitioner D.

A. In light of the Defendant’s reflectivity, contingency of motive for committing an offense, and circumstances in which the first instance court sentenced the Defendant to the punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the inferiorness of the motive for the prosecutor’s crime, the criminal records of the same violent crime committed by the defendant, the criminal records of repeated crimes, the criminal records of the victim, the agreement with the victim and the unrepared damage, etc., the sentence above the first instance

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant already committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime even though he/she had the same criminal history, such as violence and theft, including imprisonment, on several occasions, and that the victim is able to strong punishment of the Defendant, the sentence of first deliberation may be deemed to be somewhat minor.

On the other hand, however, considering the fact that the defendant is divided into his mistake, and the motive of the crime in this case appears to be somewhat contingent in terms of motive, and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., in detail, the sentence imposed by the first instance court against the defendant is deemed appropriate. Thus, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In full view of all the circumstances such as the age of the applicant for compensation and the degree of damage caused by the instant crime and the required medical expenses acknowledged by the first instance court and the first instance court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence as to the application for a compensation order, the application by the applicant for compensation is reasonable and the grounds for issuing a compensation order against the Defendant are recognized.

In addition, according to the statements of the defendant and the applicant for compensation in the first instance trial, the defendant recognized all the amount and contents of the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and agreed on the amount of compensation between the applicant for compensation and the damaged person.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, it is true.