The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

When an order for compensation issued by the court below is executed, it is expected that the family members of the defendant's family live together, such as the seizure of the housing in the name of the defendant, etc.

Since issuing an order for compensation to the accused is too harsh to issue it, the application for the order for compensation shall be dismissed, considering that there are circumstances inappropriate to issue the order for compensation.

Judgment

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court on the ground that no new data to be considered in the health room and the trial have been submitted.

In full view of the factors revealed in the records and arguments of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too large and does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

It is difficult to view that it is unreasonable to issue an order for compensation in criminal proceedings only on the grounds of the defendant's assertion on the claim for compensation order.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit.