The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below rendered against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant into account, and there is no circumstance that may be newly considered in the first instance court. Therefore, even considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. The remedy order pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings Concerning Application for Compensation Orders is a system that intends to seek prompt and convenient recovery of damage suffered by a victim by ordering compensation to the accused only when the amount of direct property damage suffered by the victim is specified and the extent of the Defendant’s compensation liability is evident. According to Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Disputes, if the existence or scope of the Defendant’s liability for compensation is unclear, the remedy order shall not be issued, and in such a case, the application for remedy order shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 32(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Legal Proceedings.

An applicant for compensation filed an application for a compensation order against the Defendant for the payment of hospital expenses, actual income, and solatium totaling KRW 93,034,076 against the Defendant for the first time in the trial. However, according to the records, the scope of liability for compensation is not clear, and it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in the criminal trial proceedings. Thus, it is rejected.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.