The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay 10 million won to E who is an applicant for compensation.

The above order shall be.

Judgment

It is reasonable to take into account the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, and that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

However, the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the victims of friendship by using personal trust relationship with the defendant, and by deceiving the total amount of KRW 97 million, which is not good, and a considerable portion of the amount of damage was not recovered, and the fact that it was not agreed with the victims is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In this context, the scope of the recommended sentence with respect to the instant fraud crime according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court is from 6 months to 1.6 months, from 1.6 months, from 1.6 months to 1.6 months, from 1.1 year to 1.6 years, from 1.1 years to 1.2 years, 2.1 years to 3.2 years, from 1.2 years to 1.2 years to 3.2 years to 1.6 months from 2.4 years from 2.4 years to 2.4 years from 1.6 months from 2.4 years from

In the trial of the decision party on the application for compensation order, C, an applicant for compensation, filed an application for compensation order with payment of KRW 88,973,494 of the defrauded money, and E, an applicant for compensation, filed an application for compensation order with the payment of KRW 10 million of the defrauded money.

The amount for which E, an applicant for compensation, is the amount obtained by deceitation as stated in the facts charged, and since the defendant did not fully repay this part of the amount obtained by deceit, it is clear the scope of responsibility for the defendant to compensate

On the other hand, the amount for which C, an applicant for compensation, seeks is not only the amount exceeding 87,00,000 won, which is the amount obtained by defraudation as stated in the facts charged, but also the amount is deemed to have been partially repaid by the parents of the Defendant and the Defendant. Therefore, the scope of responsibility for the Defendant to compensate is not clear.