The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

An application filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was actively involved in acquiring money from the victims by deceptioning as if he was an employee of the Financial Services Commission; (b) the Defendant was taking charge of the essential role of the Defendant’s act of collecting money in cash; and (c) the amount of damage, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended execution in one and half years of imprisonment; and (b) community service 200 hours in one year and six months).

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the public prosecutor’s trial-oriented principle and direct principle on the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court and the first instance

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfeasible and so it cannot be deemed that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. According to the records of the judgment on the application for compensation, the amount of defraudation against the Defendant’s applicant for compensation is 45.9 million won, and the applicant filed an application for compensation of the total amount of the above defraudation, even though he received remittance of KRW 5 million in agreement with the Defendant at the court below.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to issue a compensation order in this case because the scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is not clear.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit, and the application for remedy order by the applicant for compensation is dismissed pursuant to Article 32 (1) 3 and (2) and Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition.