The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay AA, an applicant for compensation, KRW 118,00,00.

3.2

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial. Considering that the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court are the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, records of the crime, motive or circumstance of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Determination on the application for compensation

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the application for compensation of AA, the applicant for compensation, the defendant can be recognized that he acquired 18,00 won from A, the applicant for compensation. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the above defrauded money to the applicant for compensation.

B. Article 26(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation for Determination of Claim for Compensation by AI, an applicant for compensation, provides that “The injured party may file an application for compensation pursuant to Article 25 with the court in which the case is pending before the closure of pleadings at the court of first instance or the court of second instance.” The AI, an applicant for compensation, filed an application for compensation on May 18, 2020, which was after the date of the closing of argument at the court of appeal.

Therefore, the application for compensation by AI, which is an applicant for compensation, is dismissed in accordance with Article 32 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the application for compensation filed by AA, an applicant for compensation, is with merit. Thus, the defendant is against the defendant under Articles 25 (1) and 31 (1) and (2)