The judgment below

Among them, the rejection part of the compensation order and the compensation order against the applicant D against the applicant for compensation.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The court below rejected the application for compensation filed by the applicant B and C, and rejected the application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation. The Defendant’s appeal is deemed to have appealed the part of the compensation order pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings by filing an appeal.

B. Regarding the part of the compensation order for B, there is no entry in the petition of appeal and the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant and his defense counsel as to the part of the compensation order for B, and even if ex officio examination is conducted, the grounds for cancellation and modification of this part cannot be found. Therefore, the part of the compensation order for B

C. As to the rejection portion of the application for compensation against D, the applicant cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation or accepting a part of it pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, since D, the applicant for compensation, cannot file an objection against the rejection portion of the application for compensation, it became final and conclusive immediately, the rejection portion of the application for compensation among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of

2. On October 8, 2020, the Defendant withdrawn his assertion of mistake of facts on the first trial date of the trial of the court of first instance.

Defendant

The sentence of the lower court (each confiscation of 1 year and six months of imprisonment, No. 2 and 3) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. Ex officio determination

A. The lower court, ex officio, accepted the entire application for compensation filed by C, the applicant for compensation, but C received KRW 2 million from the Defendant in the course of the trial of the lower court and prepared a written agreement and a written application for no punishment (No. 5), and among the lower judgment, the order for compensation for C cannot be maintained as it is.

B. No. 2 (Performance of Obligations and Certificate of Balance) and evidence, which are seized articles for which the court below rendered a forfeiture.