The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court rejected the Defendant B’s application for compensation of the lower court’s compensation.

An applicant for compensation is unable to file an objection against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the above application for compensation becomes final and conclusive immediately. Thus, the part dismissing the above application for compensation in the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of the trial of the court below [the court below rejected the above application for compensation after the closure of pleadings at the court of first instance, and the application for compensation can be filed until the closure of pleadings at the court of first instance or the court of second instance (Article 26(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). Thus, it is likely to prejudice the right to file an objection until the closure of pleadings at the court of second instance, but it is so decided.

Even if a passenger car, which is the damage of this case, is returned to the applicant who is the victim at the court below, and the existence or scope of the liability for compensation is unclear, so it shall not issue an order for compensation (Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). As it is difficult to avoid its dismissal, this conclusion does not vary, and the above part of rejection of the application for compensation is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court). 2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (6 months of imprisonment) of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the sentencing of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). On the basis of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court, as there is no particular submission of new materials for sentencing in the trial, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court, the Defendant recognized the crime and against the mistake of the Defendant, and a car, the damaged goods.