An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

A. The Defendant, by deceiving the horses of G, merely delivered the horses of G to the victim as they were, did not intend to deceive the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as the above in the trial, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that he belonged to G by taking account of the circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and recognized the intent of the crime of defraudation against the victim.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. According to the argument and record of the instant case’s determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court appears to have reasonably decided by fully considering the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to ex post facto change the sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal is without merit. The application for remedy order filed by the applicant for compensation is not clear whether the applicant is the victim, and thus, the existence of the Defendant’s compensation liability against the applicant for compensation is unclear. Thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 32(1)1 and 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Article 25(1)1 and 25(3)1 and 3 of the same Act.