All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The application of P which is an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant and the prosecutor) is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s act of violation; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime despite the fact that the Defendant partially repaid the amount of damage to the Defendant; (c) a large amount of damage exceeding KRW 100 million; (d) the victims did not receive suspicion from the victims; and (e) other circumstances that are disadvantageous to the Defendant during the course of the sentencing examination, such as the motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or unhued so far as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The compensation order under Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings for Determination of Application for Compensation Order is a system to ensure the recovery of damage suffered by a victim by issuing compensation order to the accused only when the amount of damage suffered by a victim is specified in the criminal act of the accused and the scope

According to Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, where the existence of liability of the accused or the scope thereof is unclear, no compensation order shall be issued, and in such cases, the application for compensation order shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7144, Aug. 30, 2012). In general, an applicant for compensation is the amount of embezzlement by the Defendant’s criminal act.