An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

2. Determination

A. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and made mistakes, and considerable part of the instant crimes is revealed by the confession of the Defendant, and most of the pipes that the Defendant stolen were seized and returned to the victim is favorable to the Defendant.

However, even if the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime two times, and again commits the instant crime, the Defendant continued to cut the pipe at the same construction site and thus, it is necessary to punish the Defendant in light of the frequency of the crime, method of use, theft amount, etc., the Defendant was unable to agree with the victim and did not make any particular effort to recover damage, and where the sentencing first instance is not exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court already determined the sentence by taking into account the favorable circumstances as seen earlier, etc., that are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances, taking into account the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is not deemed to be excessively unreasonable.

B. The applicant filed an order for compensation of KRW 40.272,00 for the first time in the trial. However, according to the records, the above order for compensation is not clear in the scope of liability for compensation, and it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in the criminal proceedings. Thus, this is not accepted.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.