The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rejected the application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the part dismissing the application for compensation order was immediately finalized.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the rejection of the above compensation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and confiscation) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial room, and even considering the various sentencing factors in the instant pleadings, including various circumstances considered in sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In particular, the crime of this case, in which the defendant participated, is so-called the so-called “singing crime,” which is highly likely to cause social harm, such as planned and organized against many and unspecified persons, and impairing mutual trust among members of society, and in order to eradicate the Bosing crime, it is necessary to take a strong response to the actors who participated in the form of aiding and abetting crime. Furthermore, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant without being aware of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of suspension of execution due to the same kind of crime, and the degree of criticism is large, and it is also the recovery of a smooth agreement with the victim or