The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment below

The part of the compensation order shall be cancelled, and the applicant for compensation shall be cancelled.

1. In light of the fact that KRW 100 million has been repaid out of the summary of the grounds for appeal and the contingency crime caused by failure in performance, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant paid approximately KRW 100 million out of KRW 270 million borrowed money from the injured party (i.e., KRW 49,358,547 for the sale of Rosteret tickets ( KRW 11,510,352 for the sale of Roster tickets) and KRW 40,000 for the rental fee of KRW 11,510,352).

However, although the victim received KRW 100 million in total, such as the sales price of the diskettes and the refund price for the performance hall, it is not clear whether the amount of damage in this case has been compensated for as it is still 270 million won since it was appropriated for 100 million won additionally paid in connection with the performance hall of this case, not the said money lent to the victim, but the said money was appropriated for 100 million won.

There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that can be newly considered after the sentence of the lower judgment.

B. In full view of the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and motive for committing the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too large and it is not deemed unfair.

B. We examine ex officio the part of the judgment below regarding the compensation order among the judgment below regarding the compensation order.

The court below issued a compensation order with the content that the defendant shall be paid KRW 270 million by deceit to the applicant for compensation.

As seen earlier, it is unclear whether a sum of KRW 100 million has been used in paying the damages of this case, such as the sales price of tweet and the refund price for performance hall, etc., as seen earlier, the scope of liability to compensate the applicant for the damage of this case is not clear.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the court below's compensation order can no longer be maintained.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.