A. The Defendant was not guilty of having ordered food and drink at a restaurant as indicated in the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant ordered food and beverage and received it in the above restaurant although he did not have the intent or ability to pay the food value, etc. as stated in the judgment below. Thus, the defendant's assertion of

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court as to the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The extent of damage is not large, and the fact that the crime of this case is in a concurrent relationship between larceny as indicated in the judgment of the lower court and the crime of this case after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the equity between the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously with the crime of this case

However, the lower court also seems to have determined the sentence in consideration of the favorable circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in the new sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, the victim wants to punish the Defendant, the Defendant had the record of criminal punishment several times due to the same kind of crime, and other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, criminal conduct, environment, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime, etc., cannot be deemed unfair because the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

There is no reason to believe that the sentencing of the defendant is unfair.

3. Conclusion.