The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is determined after the appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference from the appellate court’s opinion is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from sentencing without any difference between the first instance judgment and the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s reasonable scope of sentencing is beyond the bounds of discretion, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s new sentencing data were not submitted.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Although the applicant seeking compensation for damage amounting to KRW 15 million, the victim of the crime of fraud of this case is the three-type mutual savings bank, the OSB Savings bank, and even if the applicant paid or is expected to pay part of the defrauded money, there is room for filing a claim for compensation amount against the defendant even though the applicant paid or is expected to pay the victim the amount of partial defraudedation, not the victim of the crime of fraud of this case. Thus, the applicant’s application for compensation order

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is justified.