The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

In light of the records, it is just that the court below sentenced a compensation order by deeming that the defendant did not pay the victim AC the amount of damage, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the compensation order, as alleged in the

Meanwhile, according to the records, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance in Seoul Western District Court 2014No63 case, and asserted mistake of facts as the grounds for appeal along with the grounds for appeal, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal on mistake of facts on the second trial of the lower court, and only left the grounds for appeal as the grounds for appeal. The Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance in Seoul Western District Court 2014No536 case, and asserted only the grounds for appeal as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles due to insufficient deliberation is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the grounds for appeal are the grounds for sentencing, and the argument of violation of the rules of evidence is the grounds for unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable cannot be

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.