The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the fact that the Defendant made a confession of all the facts charged in the instant case, and his mistake is divided in depth is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the following facts are disadvantageous to the defendant.

The sum of the acquired amount due to the crime of this case reaches about KRW 310 million.

Except for the return of part of the amount acquired by deceit to victims, most of the damage has not been recovered, and it has not been received a letter from victims.

The court below seems to have determined the punishment in consideration of all favorable and unfavorable circumstances to the defendant, and there is no special change in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following: equity in the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time as the previous conviction in the judgment of the court below, the background of the instant crime, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The applicant filed an application for compensation with respect to the application for compensation order, and filed an application for compensation order against the Defendant for payment of KRW 270,625,000 and delayed damages.

However, the defendant paid part of the amount acquired by deceit to the applicant for compensation.

In addition, the applicant for compensation is also asserting that the sum of the money acquired by the defendant was 272,325,000 won after being investigated by the investigative agency, and the defendant was returned to 15 million won.

As evidence records (see, e.g., 128, 167, 168, 170) are stated, the scope of defendant's liability is not clear.

Therefore, the application for remedy is rejected.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant’s appeal is groundless.