The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is determined within an appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

In full view of the sentencing reasons revealed in the proceedings of the instant case including the fact that it is difficult to assess the amount of damage in this case, and that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too large to assess the amount of damage in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. An applicant for compensation seeking payment of KRW 42,393,00,000, which is obtained by deception, but the victim of the occupational embezzlement and fraud using computers, etc. of this case is limited company D, and the applicant is merely a de facto representative shareholder of the victim limited company D, and the applicant for compensation is merely a de facto representative shareholder of the victim limited company D, and there is no reason to apply for compensation order of this case seeking payment of compensation money by deception directly to the

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's application for compensation is with merit.