The judgment below

The defendant's appeal against the defendant's case is dismissed.

The judgment below

In respect of the applicant D.

1. The lower court rejected an application for compensation order filed by the applicant E (in early 848, 2017), and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation did not file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation order. Therefore, the part rejecting the application for compensation order was immediately finalized.

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

2. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the part of the Defendant case, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As new materials for sentencing have not been submitted at the trial court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and the circumstances for which the Defendant alleged for unfair reasons for sentencing are already reflected in the grounds for sentencing of the lower court, and other circumstances, including the motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, are considered to have already been reflected in the grounds for sentencing of the lower court, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the application for compensation order, the applicants D and the applicants for compensation for the trial at the lower court are in the name of the crime of forging a private document due to the fabrication of the application for subscription to a communications company and the crime of conducting the above investigation documents. The victims of fraud due to the acquisition of the amount equivalent to the telecommunications fees related thereto are not compensation applicants, but the victims of the crime of fraud, namely, KS Telecom (2017 Highest 1647) and ELS Co., Ltd. (2017 Highest 3432).

Therefore, it is true.