The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. No applicant for the scope of adjudication of this court shall file an objection against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation order;

(Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). The court of first instance rejected an application for remedy by I who is an applicant for compensation, and with respect to this part, it became final and conclusive immediately because the applicant for compensation is not

Therefore, the rejection of an application for compensation order among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be excluded from the scope of this court.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

(a) The sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) of the first instance judgment against the accused in the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

B. 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 is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized each of the crimes as indicated in the judgment and expressed the intent of reflect.

However, each crime of fraud committed by the Defendant is a medium-sized online camera users of large portal sites, and is not likely to cause monetary and mental damage to an individual victim. In addition, considering that it has significantly damaged trading order of used goods and social trust formed for a long time through good and ordinary ordinary people's participation in trading, the crime is very likely to be committed.

The possibility of criticism against the defendant is very high in that the defendant prepared to commit fraud, such as taking over the account in the name of Co-defendant B, as well as taking over the portal site ID.

In addition, the Defendant again committed a repeated crime due to fraud of the same law.

There is no recovery even if there is a substantial or partial amount of damage.

2.2