The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the compensation order against the applicant for compensation is revoked.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that of the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum term, eight months of short term) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. An order for compensation pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Judgment on the part of the order for compensation is a system that intends to seek the recovery of damage suffered by a victim simply and promptly by issuing an order for compensation to the accused only when the amount of damage suffered by a victim is specified in the criminal act of the accused and the scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is clear. According to Article 25(3)3 of the same Act, where the existence or scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is unclear, the order for compensation shall not be issued, and in such a case, the application for compensation shall

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7144, Aug. 20, 2012). According to the records, it is recognized that the applicant for compensation by the court below has made an agreement to the effect that the applicant for compensation by the court below was fully agreed with the defendant in the trial. The scope of the Defendant’s liability for compensation was not clear by the victims, who are the applicant for compensation by the court below, in the trial.

Therefore, the application for compensation order filed by the applicant for compensation by the court below should be dismissed, so this part of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. Although the Defendant had a record of having received juvenile protective disposition several times on the same or different types of crimes, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case by deceiving many victims within a short period of time and by deceiving them to acquire the price of goods, and thus, the Defendant should be punished strictly.

However, the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime and reflects his mistake in depth, and that 30 out of 37 victims of each of the crimes of this case have been repaid and agreed with them smoothly, the age of the defendant still remains.