The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

The court below rejected the application for compensation order of the applicant for compensation on the ground that it is not reasonable to issue a compensation order in the criminal procedure because the scope of liability for compensation is unclear.

An applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against a judgment that dismissed an application for compensation order pursuant to Article 32 (4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the court below's application for compensation order was immediately finalized.

Therefore, the rejection of an application for compensation order among the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of this court.

2. On October 8, 2020, the above applicant filed an application for compensation order seeking payment of KRW 1.9 billion against the Defendant.

Article 26(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that “An applicant for compensation may file an application for compensation with the court in which the case is pending until the pleadings at the court of first instance or the court of second instance are concluded,” and Article 32(4) of the same Act provides that “An applicant for compensation against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation cannot file the same application for compensation again.

However, as seen in paragraph (1), the court below rejected the application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation filed an application for compensation again with this court on October 8, 2020, which was after the closure of pleadings at the public trial of the case involving the instant case at the court on September 9, 2020, since the applicant for compensation filed an application for compensation again to this court on October 8, 2020, the

3. The summary of the grounds for appeal (four years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

4. The fact that the defendant, while denying the crime from the investigative agency to the court below, recognized the fact of the crime by this court. The gift investment is highly likely to cause a change, and the defendant is also partly responsible for the occurrence and expansion of the crime even to the victims of the invested fraud.