However, according to Article 32 (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, an applicant for compensation fails to file an appeal against a judgment dismissing the application for compensation order. Therefore, the rejection part of the above application for compensation order

Therefore, the rejection of an application for compensation order among the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of this court.

2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the sentencing determination in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and 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). Defendant recognized the instant crime.

However, the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, and among them, even though he was sentenced to punishment, he committed the crime of this case.

For a period exceeding one year, the Defendant acquired approximately KRW 77 million from the victim, and committed the instant crime by means of planned and secret methods, such as deceiving the victim as if he/she was another person, and making a phone call to the victim and using another person’s account.

There are no circumstances in which damage has not been recovered and the defendant has made a genuine effort to recover damage.

The victims still want to be punished for severe punishment against the defendant.

In light of the above period, frequency, fraud amount, method, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant is also the defendant.