The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The second half of the judgment of the court below shall be corrected " December 21, 201" to " October 21, 201" in the second half of the judgment of the court below.

1. The lower court rejected B’s application for compensation (Seoul Northern District Court 2019 early 180) as an applicant for compensation.

According to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, an applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation. Thus, the part rejecting the said application for compensation becomes immediately and conclusive and is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal (Defendant: Imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in paragraph (1) above as stated in the original judgment and one year for each of the crimes listed in Articles 2 through 5 above as stated in the original judgment)

3. The lower court: (a) took account of the fact that the damage recovery was not properly performed; (b) the fact that the record of punishment for a fraudulent crime was several times; and (c) sentenced the above sentence in consideration of the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

In full view of the fact that the court below's agreement with the victim K is recognized, but the actual damage is not recovered, the majority of the victims, the amount of damage is almost not recovered, the arrest was made for about eight years after the escape from the crime, the crime of fraud and larceny was committed even during the multiple times, and the crime is very poor in light of the circumstances and methods of the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below seems to be appropriate. The circumstances alleged by the defendant in this court are sufficiently considered in determining the punishment in the court below, and there was no other special change in the circumstances that could change the sentencing of the court below, and thus, the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is a clear clerical error as stated in the judgment below.