The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The part of each order for compensation against each applicant for compensation filed by the court below pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings by filing an appeal against the judgment below. However, even if the defendant and his defense counsel did not state the grounds for appeal regarding each of the above order for compensation in the petition of appeal and the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by them, and even if examined ex officio, it cannot find any grounds to revoke or revise the above order for compensation, the part of each order for compensation among the judgment below should

On the other hand, the court below dismissed all parts of the application for compensation order filed by B, C, and E by the court below, and the above applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation order pursuant to Article 32 (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the dismissed part of the above application for compensation order was immediately finalized.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the rejection of each of the above orders for compensation is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and confiscation) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial room, and even considering the various sentencing factors in the instant pleadings, including various circumstances considered in sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In particular, each of the frauds of this case in which the defendant participated.