The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation filed in the appellate court shall be dismissed.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the summary of the grounds for appeal (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court’s determination on the grounds for appeal, 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 particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the ground that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the same is not submitted.

When comprehensively considering the factors of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct and environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too so excessive that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. According to the record of the determination on the application for a compensation order, it can be acknowledged that an accomplice A agreed to pay a part of the amount of money acquired through deception to the victim on July 31, 2020 by August 15, 202 (see, e.g., evidence records 255), and it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that the change was made pursuant to the agreement, and therefore, the scope of Defendant A’s liability is clear.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, there is no reason to apply for compensation order by the applicant for compensation in the trial.

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 defendant's appeal for compensation order is dismissed in accordance with Article 32 (1) 3 and Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation. It is so decided as per Disposition.