The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment below

The part of the compensation order shall be revoked.

The court below's applicant for compensation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. Of the facts charged regarding the fraud against X (2016 order 1664 case), the re-amount 3,4 of the crime list Nos. 3, 3, and 4 of the facts charged regarding the fraud against X is not the amount obtained by deception by the Defendant, but the amount X donated by the Defendant for the fraud of the Defendant’s exchange.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the part of the order for compensation, along with the Defendant’s case, was transferred to the trial (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings), according to the Defendant’s appeal ex officio, this paper examines the part of the order for compensation ex officio.

The Defendant repaid D 14 million won to D in the first instance.

During the period from October 29, 2012 to October 23, 2015, the details paid in the sum of KRW 14,651,180 to the Defendant’s Dong H’s wife’s account from the Defendant’s Dong H’s national bank account, and to the children are confirmed (the result of confirmation of the Defendant’s account transaction details, investigation report (the suspect’s account transaction details) (the evidence list 5,66 of the case No. 1198 high group 2016 high group 1198 high group 5,6). According to the above facts, the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation by the lower court constitutes a case where the scope of the Defendant’s liability under Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is unclear.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the compensation order can no longer be maintained.

B. Fact-misunderstanding 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts were revealed: (a) X had been staying in AJ house located in Daejeon-gu AI while installing steel-frames at a private railroad construction site around the entire area from around December 2007 to the public; (b) on April 2008, X was playing in the above female line AK music room; (c) the Defendant was working in the above female line with X; and (d) the Defendant was serving as an employee in the above singing line; and (e) the Defendant was having sexual intercourse with X; and (e) the Defendant was receiving KRW 20 to 40 million from X; and thereafter, the money was referred to as the husband’s divorce Nos. 1 and 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below.