The part of the first judgment excluding the compensation order and the second judgment shall be reversed in all.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, the evidence No. 1 (No. 18,000 won issued by the Bank of Korea) confiscated by the court of first instance is part of the amount of damage acquired by the Defendant from the victim B, and thus, it must be returned to the victim. 2) Each sentence of unfair sentencing judgment of the court of first instance (no. 2 years: imprisonment with prison labor: 1 year) is too unreasonable.

(b)a sentence sentenced by the second instance court of the Prosecutor (one year of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, the first and the second and the second and the second judgments were sentenced to each judgment on the defendant, and the defendant filed an appeal against them, and the court decided to concurrently examine the above two appeals cases. Each of the above judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part excluding the compensation order part of the first and the second judgment cannot be maintained.

(b) Seized stolen property, the reasons for return of which are apparent, shall be sentenced to return to the victim by judgment;

(Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 333(1) of the Act). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the evidence No. 1 (Form 18 of the Bank of Korea issued by the Bank of Korea) which was confiscated by the first instance court is part of the amount that the Defendant acquired by deception from the victim B, who is the victim, and the Defendant was issued a cash amount of KRW 20 million from B on May 30, 2019 and transferred the amount of KRW 19.1 million among them to the account notified by “E,” and was arrested at around 15:50 on the same day, and at that time, the above KRW 9 million was confiscated.

Since the reason for return to the victim B is clear, it should have been sentenced, but it should be confiscated.