The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with labor for not less than 10 months) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The scope of defendant's liability for compensation is not clear, such as disputes over the amount of repayment between the defendant and the victim as to the judgment on the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to issue a compensation order in this case.

4. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. Since the scope of liability for compensation is not clear, the application by the applicant for compensation is dismissed in accordance with Article 32(1)3 and Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.