All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. In a case where an appeal against a judgment of conviction of the scope of a trial by this court is filed, the confirmation of a compensation order shall be prevented, and a compensation order shall be 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). With respect to any matter that is not a ground for ex officio examination, the appellate court may conduct a trial only when it is entered in the petition of appeal or is included in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within the prescribed period, unless it is stated

Even if it is obvious that the adjudication can be made ex officio.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234 delivered on September 22, 1998. The court below affirmed the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and the defendant appealeds against the judgment of the court below, but the defendant did not assert the grounds for appeal regarding the cited portion of the compensation order by the court below, and even if examined ex officio, it cannot find the grounds for cancelling or changing the cited portion of the judgment of the court below. Thus, the cited portion of the compensation order by the court below remains intact.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. Although there are no particular criminal punishment on the Defendant, and there are circumstances agreed with U.S. during the trial, the instant crime was committed by deceiving a large amount of money to use money under the pretext different from that of the promise of the victims who want to make investment returns by using the desire of the victims who want to make investment returns, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the damage recovery was not performed almost, compared to the fact that the amount of damage was very large.

It seems that the above victims agreed in the trial did not recover from actual damage.

. The above.