The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An application for remedy by an applicant for remedy shall be dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial. Considering that the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court are the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, records of the crime, motive or circumstance of the crime, amount of damage, circumstances after the crime, etc., as a whole, the sentence imposed by the lower court was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not heavy.

3. An order for compensation pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings Concerning Application for Compensation Orders is a system that intends to seek the recovery of damage suffered by a victim simply and promptly by issuing an order for compensation to the accused limited to cases where the amount of damage suffered by a victim of a criminal act of the accused is specified and the scope of liability of the accused is obvious. According to Article 25 (3) 3 of the same Act, where the existence or scope of liability of the accused is unclear, the order for compensation shall not be issued, and in such cases, the application for compensation order shall be dismissed pursuant to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7144, Aug. 20, 2012). An applicant for compensation is seeking full payment of the defrauded money in this case.

However, according to the records, there is a dispute over the amount and character of the money paid by the defendant to the victim.

Thus, since the scope of the defendant's liability cannot be seen as clear, the application for compensation order of this case must be dismissed.

4. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.