The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of two years and four months and by a fine of one million won.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment, a fine of one million won, and a compensation order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal is somewhat inappropriate since the defendant's above assertion is justified, in light of the following circumstances, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as the conditions of sentencing specified in the argument in this case. In light of the fact that the defendant recognized the crime in this case and agreed with some victims at the time of the trial, the defendant's punishment is somewhat inappropriate.

(b) An order for compensation pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Proceedings on the Compensation Order is a system that seeks 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 of the criminal act of the accused is specified and the scope of the defendant's liability 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 case, the application for the compensation order shall be dismissed

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7144, Aug. 20, 2012). According to the records of the instant case, it is recognized that the applicant for compensation, J, U.S., and AJ, made a written agreement to the effect that they agreed smoothly with the Defendant in the trial. The scope of the Defendant’s liability for compensation, which is the applicant for compensation, was not clear by agreement with the Defendant at the trial.

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order by the applicant for compensation should be dismissed, so this part of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

On the other hand, the defendant submitted each agreement with E, GF, X, AG, and AI as an applicant for compensation, but the above applicant for compensation is a written agreement.