The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

3. The scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is not clear because there is a dispute between the defendant and the victim as to the amount of reimbursement and there is insufficient data to calculate the accurate amount of payment.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to issue a compensation order in this case.

4. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. Since the scope of liability for compensation is not clear, the application by the applicant for compensation is dismissed in accordance with Articles 32(1)3 and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and is so decided as per Disposition.