Defendant

All appeals filed against Defendant B and D by C, D, E and Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. As to the judgment that partially accepted an application for compensation within the scope of the judgment in this Court, the applicant is not dissatisfied with (Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). In the event an appeal against the judgment of conviction is filed, the confirmation of the order for compensation is interrupted, and the order for compensation is transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case (Article 33(1) of the same Act). The lower court partially accepted the application for compensation by Co-defendant A, C, and E of the lower court, who is the applicant for compensation, and dismissed the remainder of the applicant for compensation.

In light of the following facts: ① the applicant for compensation is not dissatisfied with the part which was not accepted in the application for compensation; ② Defendant E did not acquire profits from a crime, unlike other accomplices in the course of committing fraud against the applicant for compensation; ② the scope of liability for compensation is unclear; and the joint tortfeasor filed a motion to dismiss the compensation order partially accepted by the court below; but the joint tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable in relation to the victim. As the joint tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable in relation to the victim, it cannot be a ground to restrict the compensation order; ③ Defendant C did not assert any separate argument as to the compensation order in the grounds for appeal; ③ even if ex officio examination is conducted, Defendant C did not find any ground to cancel or revise the compensation order by the court below.

2. The defendant who is the object of the judgment below in light of the summary of the grounds for appeal, and the remaining co-defendants shall specify only the name.

Defendant

C, D, E1) Defendant C, and E (unfair form of punishment) committed by the lower court against the Defendants (two and half years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendants C and one and a half years of suspended sentence for Defendants E) are excessively unreasonable and unfair. 2) Defendant D’s act of forging and uttering private documents.