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) sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances that the lower court rendered on the grounds of sentencing as well as all the sentencing conditions set forth in the records and arguments of this case, the sentence imposed by the Defendant is deemed appropriate and too unreasonable, and it does not seem unfair, and other special circumstances do not appear to have been to have been changed to the extent of changing the above sentence (i.e., “180,968,400 won paid by the Defendant to the victim during the period from September 1, 2015 to April 19, 2016).

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff asserted that “.....”

However, in order to deceiving the victim, the defendant paid the above amount as transportation fee, and most of the above amount is returned from the victim again under the name of driver's fee, driver's fee, driver's fee, and insurance premium, so it cannot be viewed as recovery from damage). The above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings regarding Application for Compensation Orders, the victim shall file an application for compensation before the closure of pleadings at the court of first instance or the court of second instance. The application for compensation order filed by the applicant for compensation at the court of second instance after July 12, 2017, which is the closing date of pleadings at the court of first instance, is apparent in the record that the application for compensation order at the court of second instance was filed on July 25, 2017, which is the closing date of pleadings at the court of first instance. Thus, the application for compensation order at

4. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da364(1)1 and Article 26 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, since it is apparent that the date and time of borrowing No. 9 of the crime committed during the crime committed in the lower judgment “No. 5, 2016” is a clerical error in the “No. 6, 2016.” As such, the Defendant’s application for compensation order by the applicant for compensation at the trial is inappropriate, Article 32(1)1 and 26 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation