The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the part of compensation order and the dismissed part of compensation application, shall be reversed.

1. No applicant for the scope of adjudication of this court shall file an objection against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation order;

(Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). The court of first instance rejected the application for remedy order filed by C, which is an application for remedy, and with respect to this part, it became final and conclusive immediately because the applicant

Therefore, the rejection of an application for compensation order among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be excluded from the scope of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles recognize the fact that the Defendant committed each act as stated in the facts charged, but the Defendant did not conspired to commit each crime as stated in the facts charged, and did not have the intent to obtain the Defendant. Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged erred by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The sentence of the judgment of the first instance court on the Defendant of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence of the first instance judgment against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, when the appellate court tried to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after its ex post facto and ex post facto determination, the first instance court’s determination of evidence was clearly erroneous.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is in violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as is, and there should be no reasonable grounds to deem that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment, and the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without such exceptional circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the first instance court, and the first instance court.