The judgment below

Of them, the part other than the compensation order against B and D is reversed.

The defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

1. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) against the accused against the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment on the grounds of appeal (the part of the case of the defendant) has a variety of circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and that the victim repeatedly committed fraud between two months and about 5.

On the other hand, the court below's punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable and there is a need for mitigation, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the defendant paid the amount of damage to the victim of the theft of building; (b) the defendant had the attitude of recognizing and opposing the crime of this case; and (c) the defendant's age, character and conduct; (d) family relations; (e) motives, means and methods of the crime; and (e) circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

B. When the defendant, ex officio, files an appeal against conviction regarding the part of the compensation order against C who is the applicant for compensation, the compensation order pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, even though there is no objection to the compensation order, is transferred to the appellate court along with the defendant's case, and thus, the part of the compensation order against

The court below ordered C, an applicant for compensation, to pay a theft amount of KRW 3,090,00,000, by citing part of the application for compensation order filed by C, the applicant for compensation, and rejected the rest of the application for compensation.

However, according to the records, it is recognized that the defendant paid 3,090,000 won to C who is an applicant for compensation and agreed to do so.

Therefore, since the existence or scope of the defendant's liability for compensation against C, which is an application for compensation, is not clear, it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in the criminal procedure, the part of the court below's order for compensation against C.