Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part and the judgment of the court below excluding the compensation order against the applicant N, and 2, 3.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court: 2 years of imprisonment; the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months; and the third instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. We filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings against the above tax appeal case. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance, second, and third in the judgment of the court of appeal against the defendant is a single sentence in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act because the crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below Nos. 1, 2, and 3 cannot be maintained as they are.

B. When the Defendant filed an appeal against a conviction, the order for compensation pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is transferred to the appellate court along with the case of the Defendant, even though there is no objection to the order for compensation, this paper examines ex officio the part of the order for compensation against the applicant M andO among the judgment of the first

The court of first instance ordered the defendant M to pay 700,000 won to the defendant and 499,000 won to the applicant M by accepting the application for compensation order filed by M andO.

Accordingly, according to the records, since the defendant paid a part of the amount of compensation to the applicant M andO in the trial, and the fact that the defendant agreed with the applicant M andO is recognized, the application for compensation order by the applicant M andO constitutes a case in which the scope of the liability for compensation is not clear, and the compensation order by the applicant M andO of the 1st adjudication resolution cannot be maintained any more.

3. In conclusion, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the compensation order for the applicant N, and the part 2, 3, of the judgment below excluding the compensation order for the applicant N, and the judgment of the court below excluding the compensation order for the applicant N, and 2, 3, of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the compensation order for the applicant N pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.