The judgment below

The remainder of the compensation order and dismissal order with respect to C, which is the compensation applicant, is excluded.

1. The lower court partly accepted the application for compensation order filed by C, an applicant for compensation, and dismissed the remainder.

An applicant for compensation is unable to file an objection against the rejection of the judgment that cited part of the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the foregoing dismissed part is excluded from the scope

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in both cases of imprisonment and one year and two months) by the court below (in both cases, one year and two months) is too weak or unreasonable.

3. The Defendants appears to have led to the confession of all the crimes of this case and to repent of their mistakes, and the fact that the Defendants recovered most of the victims in the trial as well as the restoration of damage to some victims at the prosecution stage and recovered most of the victims from the trial.

However, in that each of the instant crimes was planned and intentionally conducted for unspecified persons using the Internet space, the nature of the crime is very poor, as it is a crime of a similar veterinary method, Defendant A’s disposition of suspension of indictment once, Defendant B’s punishment on two occasions, and Defendant B again committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of the fact that each of the instant crimes was committed again. Furthermore, in light of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendants, such as the Defendants’ failure to take place while being prosecuted and going through a trial, and leading to the crime, it is inevitable to punish the Defendants.

However, in full view of various circumstances, including the defendants' age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings, the sentence of the court below is somewhat inappropriate.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is reasonable, and thus, the judgment of the court below is in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.