A. In relation to fraud 1), the court below found the defendant guilty of fraud in this part of the charges of fraud, which states that the defendant's deception would be calculated at the time of this case as to the damage of property and interference with business affairs. 2) As to the damage of property and interference with business affairs, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of fraud in this part of this case that other customers who had been in the vicinity of the victim and the price payment with the victim were in the front point of this case, who believe that the defendant would have to calculate the drinking value at the time of this case, and that the victim would not pay the price by urging the victim through the payment of alcohol and he was waiting after the order of alcohol and he was operated by the victim D, and that the victim would not have any intention to obstruct the defendant's property or interfere with the defendant's business affairs despite the damage of property and interference with the defendant's business affairs.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the 1st fraud in determining the mistake of facts, namely, ① the police officer sent to the site of this case on the ground that the defendant was aware of a person at the time of this case, was called to the person, but the person was rather aware of the defendant, and ② the defendant asserts that he had paid the ex post facto ex post facto ex post facto ex post facto ex post facto payment of the ex post facto ex post facto payment.