사기등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
An application for remedy by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment on the grounds of appeal is recognized and contradictory to all the facts of the crime, the facts of the crime of this case and the first head of the crime of this case as stated in the judgment below should be considered in the principle of equity with the case of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the sum of the amounts paid by the defendant to the victims as interest, etc. is also recognized, but the sum of the amounts obtained by deceit is large, the damage was not properly recovered, the damage was not properly recovered, there was no special circumstance or change of circumstances that can be considered in sentencing after the decision of the court below was rendered, and there were no other various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and thus, the defendant's assertion is not unfair because the defendant's punishment against the defendant is too excessive.
3. On the basis of the determination of an application for a compensation order, the applicant shall seek the Defendant to pay 13 billion won in the balance of the loan.
The compensation order pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits is a system in which the amount of direct property damage suffered by the victim of the criminal act of the defendant is specified, and only when the scope of the compensation liability of the defendant is evident, the compensation order is intended to seek the recovery of damage suffered by the victim simply and promptly by ordering the compensation to the defendant. According to Article 25 (3) 3 of the same Act, if the existence or scope of the compensation liability of the defendant is unclear, the compensation order shall not be issued, but in such a case, the court shall rule on the compensation order pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the same Act.