The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., misappropriation) of each of the original judgments (e.g., 6 months and 6 months), is too unreasonable.

2. As the Defendant appealed from the judgment of the court below on official authority, and this court decided to consolidate the above two appeals cases, each of the offenses in the judgment below against the Defendant shall be sentenced to one sentence in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Each judgment of the court below shall not be maintained as it is.

3. Where an appeal against a judgment of conviction regarding an ex officio determination of a compensation order is filed, the confirmation of a compensation order shall be prevented even if no objection to the compensation order is raised, and the compensation order is transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings), and the part of the compensation order in the judgment of

The compensation order pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is a system that intends to specify the amount of direct property damage suffered by a victim of a criminal act of a defendant and order the compensation of the defendant only in cases where the amount of damage is clearly specified and the scope of the defendant's liability is clear. Under Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the compensation order shall not be issued in cases where the existence or scope of the defendant's liability is unclear. In such cases, the application for compensation order shall be dismissed pursuant to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7144, Aug. 30, 2012). According to the records of this case, the Defendant paid 1.3 million won to the victim during the trial and agreed with the victim. As such, the Defendant cannot issue an order for compensation because the existence and scope of the Defendant’s liability for compensation against the applicant for compensation is unclear.