The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

A. Although the Defendant did not deceiving D at the time of the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, even if the defendant had D as a joint and several surety in receiving money from each lending company, it can be acknowledged that D, even though he did not have the ability to repay the loan normally, by deceiving D as stated in the facts of the crime of the court below, and caused D to obtain a total amount of KRW 12 million from each lending company, and thus, it can be recognized that D had D as a joint and several surety. Accordingly, the defendant's mistake or misapprehension of legal principles on different premise is without merit.

3. In full view of the various circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant case’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, and thus, there is no reason to deem the Defendant’s unfair argument of sentencing (Provided, That the “the Defendant’s loan” of the second instance judgment No. 7 of the lower court’s judgment appears to be a clerical error in the “(state) loan” of the Defendant’s second instance judgment). 4. Conclusion, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed, and the scope of the Defendant’s liability for compensation is unclear, and the Defendant’s application for compensation is dismissed pursuant to Articles 25(3), 32(1) and 32(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Etc. [in addition, the Prosecutor requested changes of the indictment’s “70 million won” of the charges and five million won of the indictment’s amendment to the indictment.”