All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. (A) The Defendant alleged that the taxi fee was excessive compared to the distance of movement and refused payment, and did not have the intent or ability to pay the taxi fee to the victim C, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

In consideration of the various circumstances on the defendant of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence of the court below (the fine of 500,000 won) is too heavy.

B. The prosecutor (i.e., mistake of facts) should be deemed to have the defendant at least had the intention to accept the damage of property, i.e., the damage of another person's property, and even if such damage has occurred, inasmuch as the defendant had caused the recurrence of repeated paragraphs and proposals by C, which are taxi engineers, and caused the damage to the metres. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. In light of the nature and content of the instant crime of unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s punishment is too minor.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant: (a) on March 9, 201, around 21:20, 201, she boarded the victim’s taxi and moved back to the front of the Gwangju Seo-gu Office of Education with his destination changed; and (b) the victim demanded a taxi fee after arrival at the destination; (c) the Defendant was driving the victim as an employee of the prosecution; and (d) the Defendant opened the front door door door and went out; and (e) the victim was accompanied by the police box along with the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant confirmed that there was a taxi fee at the time, but cash was paid on the Defendant’s wall.