The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. In a case where an appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction on the cited parts of each compensation order rendered by the applicant for compensation D, B, F, G, and C, the compensation order is transferred to the appellate court along with the defendant's case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit). The part accepting the application by the applicant for compensation by the above applicant for compensation was not finalized by the defendant's appeal but transferred to this court. However, the defendant did not assert any specific grounds for appeal regarding the cited parts of each compensation order by the court below, and there is no reason to revoke or revise the cited parts of the compensation order by the court below ex officio, and thus, it is necessary

B. Under Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits, etc. of the Rejection Part of Application for Compensation Order filed by E, an applicant for compensation, the applicant for compensation failed to file an appeal against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation order. Therefore, all of the rejection parts

Therefore, the above dismissal part of the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor, order to complete a program, and order to restrict employment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 in the appellate

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health class, the lower court, after comprehensively taking account of various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, newly presented materials that the Defendant returned 9,40,000 won to certain victims prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment. However, in light of the overall scale of damage, etc., it is difficult for the lower court to change the sentence solely on such circumstances to the lower court’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.