The judgment below

The defendant's appeal concerning the defendant's case is dismissed.

The order for compensation by the court below shall be revoked.

The court below held.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Improper sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Illegality of a compensation order: The Defendant does not bear any liability to compensate the applicant for the compensation of the lower court. Therefore, the lower court’s compensation order is unlawful.

2. Determination

A. There is a relatively small amount of fraud as to the illegal argument of sentencing. Unlike the reasoning of the court below, it is more favorable to consider the balance between the case of fraud in which the judgment of the court below, which is the same criminal record, has become final and conclusive.

However, the fact that the instant crime has been committed four times of the same kind, and that the instant crime has been committed again during the suspension period of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the same criminal record (which is a separate criminal record other than fraud for which the judgment in the original judgment

In addition, in consideration of the motive and background of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the age of the defendant, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the theory of changes, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because the sentence of the court below is too uneasible.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

B. Article 32(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc.”) of an order for compensation ought to be dismissed by ruling, where the issuance of an order for compensation is deemed unreasonable.

Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that "where the existence or scope of liability of the defendant is not clear, the compensation order shall not be issued.

"........"

According to the records, the defendant may recognize the fact that he remitted the amount exceeding 230,000 won by deceit to the applicant for compensation on February 23, 2016 (the 65th page of the trial record). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's liability for compensation against the applicant for compensation is not clear, and the existence or scope of such liability is not clear.