All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The defendant shall obtain money of KRW 150,000 from the applicant for compensation to the applicant for compensation.

1. The part of the compensation order against the applicant for compensation filed by the court below pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings by filing an appeal against the judgment below. However, although the defendant and his defense counsel did not state the grounds for appeal regarding the part of the compensation order among the judgment below in the petition of appeal and the statement of reasons for appeal submitted by them, and even if ex officio is examined, the part of the judgment below concerning the compensation order among the judgment below cannot be found or changed. Thus,

On the other hand, an applicant may not file an objection against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation order or admitting a part thereof.

(Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. The lower court rejected an application for compensation No. 2020 early 306, an application for compensation filed by the lower court, which is an application for compensation, and became final and conclusive immediately since the rejection part is not possible to file an objection. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment dismissing an application for compensation order

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial, and the sentencing factors of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are comprehensively taken into account, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or is fluent and reasonable scope of discretion.