The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant pays KRW 93,00 to P,O, and V, an application for compensation for the trial.

3.2

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for four months) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even in light of the materials submitted at the trial court, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and in full view of all the factors indicated in the record of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is unfeasible, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. According to the record of the judgment on the application for compensation, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 93,00 to the applicant for compensation in each of the trial because the Defendant acquired KRW 93,00 against P,O, and V, the applicant for compensation.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. Since the application for compensation of P,O, and V, which is the application for compensation for the compensation of the trial, is well-grounded, the prosecutor's appeal is ordered to compensate the defendant for fraud in accordance with Articles 25 (1), 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and it is so decided as per