The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the instant crime of this case with regard to the determination of the illegality of sentencing was committed through the victim’s urgent wife, and that the crime was committed by deceiving and embezzling KRW 29.7 million in total, and that the nature of the crime is not less and that the Defendant has been punished several times for the same crime.

However, for the first time, the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable, taking into account the following factors: (a) the defendant was recognized as all of the crimes; (b) the defendant committed a crime; (c) the defendant was smoothly agreed with the victim; (d) the defendant was old and healthy; and (e) the defendant’s character and behavior, environment; and (e) the defendant’s developments, motive, means, and consequence leading to the crime of this case; and (e) the circumstances before and after the crime was committed.

3. When the defendant, ex officio, files an appeal against a conviction, the order for compensation pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, even if the defendant does not object to the order for compensation, is transferred to the appellate court along with the defendant's case. Therefore, we examine ex officio the remainder of the order for compensation except the dismissed portion

The lower court partially accepted the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and ordered the Defendant to pay the damages amounting to KRW 29.7 million.

According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant submitted an agreement to the effect that he would not raise a civil or criminal objection by mutual consent with the victim when he was in the trial of the party, so the application for compensation order by the applicant for compensation falls under a case in which the scope of liability for compensation is unclear, and the compensation order by the court below was no longer maintained.

4. The conclusion is that the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the part of the judgment below's rejection of an application for compensation order pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is excluded.