The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Where an appeal against a judgment of conviction in the scope of adjudication by this Court is filed, the confirmation of a compensation order shall be prevented, and a compensation order shall be transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). In addition, an applicant may not file an appeal against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation or admitting a part thereof.

(Article 32(4) of the same Act. The court below partially accepted the application for the compensation order filed by C, and rejected the application for the remaining compensation order filed by C, and the application for the compensation order filed by B, which is the applicant for compensation. Since the rejection of the application cannot be filed, the above rejection part in the judgment below became final and conclusive immediately, the rejection part of the above application for compensation among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment

Meanwhile, the part of accepting the compensation order against C 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, the appeal petition and the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant and his defense counsel do not contain the grounds of appeal regarding the cited part of the compensation order among the judgment below, and even if ex officio examination is conducted, the grounds of cancelling or changing the cited part of the judgment below cannot be found. Thus, the cited

2. The sentence imposed by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant did not submit new sentencing data in the trial following the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and the Defendant took over the position of X religious organizations.