A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A seized beer shall be confiscated.

A. When Defendant (the second instance judgment) did not file an appeal within the period of appeal under Article 1 of the lower judgment and the prosecutor became aware of the appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing against the first instance judgment, the Defendant filed a statement of grounds of appeal stating that the first instance judgment shall file an appeal against the lower judgment on April 29, 2013, with this court.

However, in light of the following, the Defendant did not submit a petition of appeal to the court of the original judgment within the period of appeal, and considering the contents of the “responding to the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor” as to the first instance judgment by the Defendant’s defense counsel, it is reasonable to view the Defendant’s grounds for appeal as a reply to

1) In spite of the intention or ability to pay taxi charges in holding KRW 30,00 at the time of boarding the instant taxi, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence (one hundred months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. In light of all the circumstances, including the frequency of the crimes and the details of the crimes, etc., a prosecutor (an unreasonable sentencing sentence against the judgment of the court of first instance) committed by the court below (an imprisonment of August, a suspended sentence of two years, probation, and confiscation (an imprisonment of two years) is deemed to be too uneasible

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the court of original judgment, Nos. 1 and 2 sentenced the defendant guilty, after completing a separate hearing against the defendant, and the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, respectively, and the court decided to hold concurrent hearings against the above two appeals. Each of the offenses of the court of first and second judgment against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and is within the term of punishment, aggravated concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.