All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The defendant shall be KRW 9,625,000,000, which shall be acquired through deception by the applicant.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, community service order, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment by considering all unfavorable circumstances, as stated in the “reason for sentencing” in the judgment, and there is no new circumstance or special change in circumstances to be reflected in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower court.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in records and pleadings, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed as being excessively heavy or unbrupted and unfair.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below, was unable to file an application for compensation by the date of the final decision of the court below after putting 9,625,000 won from the victim B as stated in the judgment below.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 9,625,00 to the applicant B of the core compensation for the trial (the applicant is also entitled to the payment of KRW 9,625,00 by the rate of 12% per annum from March 25, 2020 to the date of full payment. However, this part of the applicant’s application for compensation does not fall under “direct physical damage, medical expenses and consolation money caused by the criminal act of the Defendant,” or does not fall under “the existence or scope of liability for compensation” under Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., or does not fall under “the existence or scope of liability for compensation arising from the criminal act of the Defendant,” and thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s appeal are justified.