The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, excluding the dismissed part of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

1. The second instance court dismissed the applicant V’s application for compensation, and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the above application for compensation became immediately final and conclusive, and thus, the part dismissing the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserted that there may be some differences between the amount of damage by victim and the amount actually damaged (the difference between the amount received by the Defendant and the amount paid by the victims) on each criminal fact of the first trial by the date of the first trial of the trial of the first instance. However, on July 11, 2018, the Defendant explicitly withdrawn the defense counsel’s written opinion and the second trial of the first trial of the second instance.

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the first sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for six years, and the second sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor recruited the criminal facts in the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the judgment of the court of first instance in the petition of appeal and the reasoning of appeal regarding the judgment of the court of first instance in the judgment of the court of first instance.

As to the part of the lower judgment that deemed insufficient to be recognized, the Defendant and R, S, Q, etc. asserted that a conspiracy relationship is recognized. However, at the first trial date of the first trial of the first instance, the part on the assertion of mistake of the above facts was irrelevant to the establishment of the Defendant’s crime, and explicitly withdrawn the allegation of mistake of the above facts.

The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the defendant (six years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

3. Ex officio determination

A. We examine the part of the judgment of the court below concerning each of the defendant's cases prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.

1) First, the Defendant was sentenced to six years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on August 10, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 29, 2018.