The judgment below

The remainder of the compensation order, excluding the compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant received USD 20,00 from the victim of the mistake of fact is not the money borrowed from the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case, but the money received from the victim is merely the money received from the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the part of the judgment below regarding the order for compensation ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal regarding the part concerning the order for compensation.

The compensation order pursuant to the provisions of Article 25 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is a system that intends to order the compensation of damage suffered by a victim of a criminal act of a defendant only when the amount of damage suffered by a criminal act of a defendant is specified and the scope of the defendant's compensation is clear, thereby promoting the recovery of damage suffered by a victim simply and promptly. According to the provisions of Article 25 (3) 3 of the same Act, where the existence or scope of the defendant's compensation liability is not clear, a compensation order shall not be issued, and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7144 Decided August 20, 2012, etc.). The lower court, upon accepting an application for compensation by an applicant for compensation, ordered the applicant for compensation to pay the applicant for compensation of USD 20,000 by deceitation of USD 20,00. However, according to the records of this case, it can be recognized that the Defendant received a written agreement from the applicant for compensation to the effect that he/she would pay KRW 25 million to the applicant for compensation and would not want to be punished by the Defendant from the applicant

Therefore, the existence or scope of the defendant's liability for compensation against the applicant for compensation is not clear, so the compensation order part of the judgment of the court below is in this regard.