The part of the compensation order is reversed, and the compensation order is revoked by the judgment of the court of first instance, and the applicant for compensation is entitled to the compensation.

1. The allegation that the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s case was erroneous in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the sentencing of the Defendant constitutes an unfair sentencing argument.

According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, a final appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in the instant case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the Defendant, the wrongful argument in sentencing is not

2. The compensation order pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is a system where the amount of damage is specified for direct property damage suffered by the victim of the criminal act of the defendant, and only when the scope of compensation liability of the defendant is apparent, the compensation order is designed to seek the restoration of damage suffered by the victim simply and promptly by ordering compensation to the defendant.

According to Article 25 (3) 3 of the above Act, if the existence or scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is unclear, a compensation order shall not be issued, and in such a case, the application for compensation order shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7144, Aug. 30, 2012, etc.). According to the records, the first instance court order the applicant for compensation maintained by the lower court to pay the amount of KRW 15 million by fraud to the applicant for compensation. The applicant for compensation is promising that he/she will not raise any criminal objection (request) for the future as he/she has agreed to recover from the defendant and have already agreed to do so.

The submission of a written agreement to that effect is known.

Thus, this case constitutes a case where the existence and scope of the defendant's liability for compensation against the applicant is unclear and thus it is impossible to issue an order for compensation.