The defendant's appeal as to the defendant's case is dismissed.

Each order for compensation by the original court shall be revoked.

1. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Although the Defendant agreed with the victims in the trial of the judgment, the damage was recovered from the fact that the amount of damage was relatively small, and the crime of this case cannot be somewhat less than that of undermining the trust in online goods transactions among many unspecified individuals. Furthermore, the Defendant was sentenced to one year imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution in the Ulsan District Court on December 19, 2019 and was sentenced to two years of suspended execution on December 27, 2019, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 27, 2019, and was still under suspended execution, it is inevitable to severely punish the Defendant.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the factors of sentencing revealed in the process of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair due to excessive fault.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Where an appeal against ex officio judgment of conviction as to the part of the order for compensation among the judgment below is filed, the confirmation of the order for compensation is interrupted, and the order for compensation is transferred to the appellate court (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings), and even where the judgment of the court below is maintained at the appellate court (Article 33(4) of the same Act), the court below’s order for compensation may be revoked or amended (Article 33(4) of the same Act). According to the records of this case, it can be known that the applicant B and C submitted each written agreement to the effect that “the defendant would disrupt the defendant’s wife because they received the amount of damage from the defendant’s side,” and therefore, the existence and scope of the defendant’s liability for compensation against the applicant is not clear (Article 25(3)3 of the same Act).