The defendant shall pay F, who is an applicant for compensation, KRW 30,000,000.

3.2

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, considering the following: (a) there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions on the grounds that the health team and the new sentencing data were not submitted in the trial; and (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing specified in the records and pleadings of the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable to be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. Since the application for compensation order by the applicant for compensation is well-grounded, the compensation amount of KRW 30,00,000 shall be ordered to the defendant under Articles 25 (1), 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation, etc., and the above compensation order shall be sentenced to provisional execution pursuant to Article 31 (3