The judgment below

Of the judgment below, the defendant's case is reversed and the compensation order part among the judgment below is revoked.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. It is recognized that the Defendant, by deceiving the victims in a trust relationship with regard to the illegal claim for sentencing on the Defendant’s case, acquired money from approximately KRW 220 million, the Defendant used the money obtained through deception to pay his personal debts, and did not reach any agreement with the victims, and that the Defendant has a history of punishment for the same kind of method.

However, the above judgment was rendered on April 20, 2017 by the Defendant, who was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court, and became final and conclusive on September 8, 2017. Each of the crimes of this case was committed before the above final and conclusive judgment, and, in consideration of the balance in sentencing with the case where the judgment was rendered together, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.

B. The lower court, ex officio, ordered the payment of KRW 172,831,950, which deducts KRW 19,30,000, which the applicant consented to the deduction of the compensation amount from the compensation amount on the date of the lower judgment’s declaration, and the delayed damages therefrom.

However, there is no indication that the applicant consented to the deduction of 19,300,000 won from the compensation amount.

In addition, according to the trial records (58 to 62 pages), it is known that the defendant paid 19,300,000 won to the applicant for compensation, and the defendant asserts that he paid 19,300,000 won to the applicant for compensation, but it is not known in the records as to whether the defendant partially repaid the principal to the applicant for compensation or paid the proceeds.

Therefore, the scope of the defendant's liability to compensate is clear.