The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

1. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case and sentenced the defendant one year of imprisonment, dismissed all of the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation. According to Article 32 (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion Act”), since the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation, the part dismissing the application for each of the above orders for compensation became final and conclusive immediately. Thus, the part rejecting the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation is excluded from the scope of the

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, although the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

However, the sentencing of the first instance court is discretionary when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria as shown in the first instance sentencing process.