An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are that the Defendant received the money stated in the facts charged in the instant case from the victim as the acquisition fund of a restaurant or its partner loan, so there is no fact that the Defendant deceptioned the victim, and there was no intention to commit fraud. Nevertheless, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (six

B. 1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that the Defendant committed a deception as stated in the instant facts charged by intentional fraud is recognized. Therefore, there is no mistake of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles in the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. 2) In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court as to the allegation of unfair sentencing, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In the instant case, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court. In full view of the following, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age and criminal environment; (b) relationship with the victim; (c) details and details of the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant

2. In a case where the victim, who judged the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, already has a title of debt concerning the recovery of property damage, there is no benefit to file an application for compensation separately (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1217, Jul. 27, 1982). According to the records of this case, the Defendant suffered the damage of this case from the applicant for compensation on July 31, 2018.