A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 was aware of the fact regarding fraud (the part concerning fraud in the lower judgment No. 2014 high order No. 224) (the part concerning fraud in the lower judgment No. 1 and No. 224) and the intention to repay and ability to repay), and Defendant had the intent to pay and ability to pay food and alcohol at the time of being provided.

B) A Party V, the husband of the victim of the part D, consented to the credit transaction and received food and alcohol on credit.

C) Since the Defendant ordered 5 Mariju Co., Ltd., but did not drink, the crime of fraud is not established.

2) The lower court’s judgment 2,2014 high group 224 high group 2,2014 high group 302 high group 2,2014 high group 302 high group, and the Defendant misunderstanding the legal doctrine as to the crime of interference with business, and the Defendant did not engage in any act identical to the crime of interference with business in the judgment of the lower court, and divided conversations with employees on the part of the crime of interference with business. Thus, the Defendant’s act does not violate social rules and does not constitute a threat of interference with business, and did not result in a result of interference with business.

3) misunderstanding the facts concerning the crime of assault and public performance obscenity (the part of the case No. 2014 order No. 302 of the judgment below of the court below) and misapprehending the legal principles, the Defendant did not constitute the crime of assault, since the Defendant did not have a letobropos in the direction of the floor to have a letosical lebar in the direction toward the victim.

In addition, the defendant cannot be viewed as obscenity under the Criminal Act because it is merely about the crypto the wall to put his or her sexual organ into the wall to put his or her old urology, and there is no performance.

4) The lower court erred by omitting and distorted the protocol, such as the omission and distortion of the protocol, the violation of the principle of no representation in the protocol, the violation of the rules of evidence, and the omission of judgment, etc. In this case, even though the investigation was terminated by the “local guidance,” the “measures for returning home,” and the “voluntary returning to home,” the prosecution was made again against the principle of no representation in the indictment, and the investigation, such as seizure and seizure, is conducted.