An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the grounds for appeal, 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). In such a case, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment because new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial at the same time, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., of the lower court’s sentencing are considered appropriate, and it does not seem to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too uneased.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. That the applicant suffered a loss of KRW 3 million due to the instant crime.

The defendant asserts that the above amount of compensation is claimed against the defendant.

However, since the materials submitted in this case alone are not clear in the scope of the defendant's liability for compensation, it is recognized that it is not reasonable to issue a compensation order in criminal procedure.

Therefore, we cannot accept the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation is dismissed pursuant to Articles 32 (1) 3 and 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition.