The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In a case where an appeal against a judgment of conviction in the scope of a trial by this court is filed, the confirmation of a compensation order shall be prevented even without an objection to the compensation order, and the compensation order shall be transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). With respect to any matter that is not a ground for ex officio examination, the appellate court may conduct a trial only when it is entered in the petition of appeal or is included in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within

Even if it is obvious that the adjudication can be made ex officio.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234 delivered on September 22, 1998. The court below accepted B’s application for compensation which is an applicant for compensation, and the defendant appealeds against the judgment below, but the defendant did not assert the grounds for appeal regarding the cited part of the judgment below’s application for compensation, and even upon ex officio examination, it cannot find the grounds for cancelling or changing the cited part of the judgment below’s application for compensation. Thus, the cited part of the judgment below’s application for compensation remains intact.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The lower court: (a) took account of the fact that the amount of damage was large and most of the amount of damage was paid out of compensation due to the victim’s death; (b) the Defendant did not recover from damage; and (c) the Defendant had been punished several times; and (d) sentenced the above sentence by taking account of the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the sentencing conditions presented by the court below reveals that the sentencing of the court below is appropriate, and there is no special change in circumstances to change the sentencing of the court below at the time of the trial. Thus, the sentence of the court below against the defendant is just.