Of the judgment of the court below, the compensation order of the first instance judgment and the first offense of the second instance judgment are excluded.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. Where the first instance court accepted an application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and filed an appeal against the conviction, the final judgment on the order for compensation shall be prevented, and the part thereof shall also be transferred to the appellate court together with the accused case, even if there is no objection to the order for compensation.

However, while filing an appeal against the first instance judgment, the Defendant did not assert any grounds for appeal regarding the cited part of the compensation order, and there is no reason to revoke or change it ex officio. Thus, the cited part of the first instance judgment is to maintain the aforementioned cited part of the compensation order.

B. The second instance court acquitted the Defendant of all the charges charged by the second instance court, and exempted the Defendant from the punishment of fraud against the victim C, and sentenced the Defendant to three months of imprisonment for the remaining crimes.

However, since only the Defendant appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing regarding the conviction except the exemption portion, the part on which the exemption from punishment was pronounced in the judgment of the second instance became final and conclusive.

C. Therefore, the scope of this Court's adjudication is limited to the compensation order of the first instance judgment among the judgment below and the remaining part except the first offense part of the judgment of the second instance judgment.

2. The sentence of each court below (the first instance court: imprisonment for a period of eight months, the second instance court, and the imprisonment for three months) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

The first and second original judgments were sentenced to each of the defendants, and the defendant filed each appeal against the first and second original judgments, and the court decided to hold the first and second original judgments together with the case of the second and the second original judgment.

Since each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance and that of the second judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the compensation order of the judgment of the court of first instance and the second judgment among the judgment of the court of