The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant pays 975,00 won to the applicant for compensation (favour) CK.

1. In a case where an appeal against a judgment of conviction in the scope of adjudication of this Court is filed, the confirmation of a compensation order shall be prevented even without an objection to the compensation order, and the compensation order shall be transferred to the appellate court along with the defendant case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). With respect to non-reason for ex officio investigation, the appellate court may conduct adjudication only where it is stated in the petition of appeal or it is included in the reason for appeal submitted within the prescribed period, unless it is stated in the petition of appeal. However, it is evident that the appellate court may conduct adjudication ex officio even if it is not included in the reason for appeal only for exceptional reasons affecting the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234, Sept. 22, 1998). The lower court fully accepted the applicant’s application for compensation, and although the defendant appealed against the judgment of the lower court, the defendant did not assert the grounds for appeal regarding each of the cited parts of each compensation order of the lower judgment, even if examined ex officio.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defendants) that the court below sentenced to the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of fraud committed on the Internet for an unspecified number of unspecified persons disturbs the order of electronic commerce, encourages the public order of society, and encourage a large number of victims to grow up for a short period of time, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish them. The Defendant repeated several times during the short period from January 20 to March 2020, and repeated the Defendant’s act of fraud under the same law for a short period of time, and the Defendant’s act of fraud was 66 victims caused by the Defendant’s crime and 50 million won, and the amount of damage was 66 victims and 50 million won, and the Defendant’s defrauded was deemed to use part of the amount acquired by the Defendant as gambling money, such as a sports soil.