The judgment below

The part of the compensation order shall be reversed, and the application for compensation of this case shall be dismissed.

The remaining appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the record as to the defendant's case, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. According to the record as to an order for compensation, an applicant for compensation (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") filed an application for compensation with the court of first instance for the payment of KRW 65,40,00 on September 23, 2015, which was after the closure of pleadings, after the closure of pleadings at the court of first instance, and was decided by the court of first instance on September 24, 2015 on the ground that the above application for compensation was in an incidental legal nature as an application for compensation after the closure of pleadings. The defendant appealed against the judgment of first instance, and the applicant filed an appeal in the court of first instance again at the court of first instance, and the court of first instance reversed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the applicant applied for compensation with the same content as the above application for compensation at the court of first instance at the court of first instance on the ground that he was guilty of the facts charged against the defendant, and sentenced the defendant in one year and two months, and issued a compensation order with respect to the defendant

According to Article 32 (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings”), an applicant may not appeal against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation or accepting part of the application for compensation, and may not file the same application for compensation again.

Since the applicant's application for compensation was rejected in the first instance court, the original court cannot make the same application for compensation again, and the original court should have dismissed the applicant's application for compensation of this case.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding a compensation order, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the compensation order is reversed, and this part is sufficient for the Supreme Court to render a self-reader, and Article 33 of the Litigation Promotion Act.