The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below's scope of trial in this Court accepted an application for compensation order filed by the applicant for compensation, and the defendant appealed to the part of the compensation order pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion, etc. of Affiliation by filing an appeal against the judgment below. However, although the defendant and his defense counsel did not state the grounds for appeal as to the part of the compensation order in the petition of appeal and the reasons for appeal submitted by the defense counsel, and even if examined ex officio, the court below's compensation

2. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as sentencing factors were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant were sufficiently considered, and there is no particular change in circumstances in the matters subject to sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

In addition, even though the defendant was a primary offender, each of the crimes of this case was committed by abusing the trust relationship with the victim. In light of the period of the crime and the amount of damage, etc., the crime was committed by abusing the trust relationship with the victim. In full view of the circumstances such as the fact that the nature of the crime is very heavy in view of the crime, the partial repayment of the embezzled amount was made, but most of the damage amount was still not recovered, the court below's sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering all of the factors indicated in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, circumstances leading to the crime

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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