The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay KRW 950,00 to AA, an applicant for compensation, 950,00.

3.2

1. The court below's scope of trial in this Court shall be deemed to have granted the full application for a remedy order by J, L and G among the applicant for compensation, and the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment below pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

However, without stating the grounds for appeal regarding the part of the order for compensation in the petition of appeal and the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant and defense counsel, and even if examined ex officio, the part of the order for compensation cannot be revoked and amended.

On the other hand, an applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation order (Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings), and the court below rejected the application for compensation order of H, I, F,K, E, C, and D among the applicant for compensation. Since this part of the judgment below's rejection of the application for compensation order becomes final and conclusive immediately as it is impossible to file an objection, the part of the decision of the court below which rejected

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 1 year for the remaining crimes) of each penalty (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes in attached Table No. 1, No. 2019, 2716, 2019, 3087 among paragraphs 1, 2019, 2019, 3282, 2019, 3069, 2019, 4070) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. It is reasonable to respect the assertion of unfair sentencing in a case where 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court did not agree with the victims, and did not recover from damage.