The defendant shall pay 100,000 won to C who is an applicant for compensation at the trial.

3.2

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit. The defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and part of the application for compensation order filed by the applicant for compensation at the trial (in case where the applicant for compensation who has been dismissed on the ground that he applied for compensation order after the closing of argument in the original trial applies for compensation order again at the trial, it is not dismissed on such ground that the applicant for compensation in the original trial does not dismiss the application for compensation at the trial, and it does not dismiss the application for compensation in the original trial, and pursuant to Articles 25 (1) and 31 (1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., the defendant shall order the applicant for compensation to compensate for 10,000 won by fraud against the defendant pursuant to Article 31 (3) of the same Act, and