The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant on the gist of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal is too unhutiled and unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court 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 judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too unfluent and so, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

The prosecutor's improper argument in sentencing is without merit.

3. The compensation order pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings Concerning Application for Compensation Order is a system that specifies the amount of direct property damage suffered by the victim of the criminal act, and only when the scope of compensation liability of the defendant is evident, the compensation order is designed to seek prompt and prompt recovery of damage suffered by the victim by ordering the compensation to the defendant. According to Article 25 (3) 3 of the same Act, if the existence or scope of the compensation liability of the defendant is unclear, the compensation order shall not be issued. In such a case, the court shall dismiss the application for compensation by decision pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do945, Jun. 11, 1996, etc.). According to the records of this case, the applicant for compensation recognized the fact that he has received 5,80,000 won from the defendant from the investigative agency (to the Busan District Court Decision 2017Da23705, Feb. 30, 2017).