All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The lower court rejected an application for compensation by an applicant for compensation, and the case of an application for compensation order was immediately finalized as the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is not possible.

Therefore, the rejection of an application for compensation order among the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of the trial of the party.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: although the Defendant received money from the victim F, this is merely a receipt of the money that the Defendant would receive from the victim’s partner P, and the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not have the intent or ability to cause the victim to deliver oil to the bus company as stated in the facts charged, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty without deceiving the victim, was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. On May 20, 2017, the prosecutor 1) found the Defendant guilty on the charges of mistake of facts as to the victim F of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts that the Defendant had obtained the same pecuniary benefit by deceiving the victim by holding the victim in company at the drinking place and paying the amount equivalent to KRW 2,500,000,000,000, in spite of the Defendant’s intent or ability to cause the victim to deliver the oil to R, and thus, it should be deemed that the Defendant had acquired the same pecuniary benefit by inducing the victim to attend the drinking place with the above company’s director. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charges of this part. The lower court erred

3. The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in the lower court also considered the victim of this case as F in full view of the circumstances in which the victim F was kept in custody by the victim F, and the victim of this case was managed independently. As such, P was also engaged in the victim and the gas station business, part of the victim of this case is himself.