A. Since misunderstanding of the legal principles does not intend to pay food values, the intent of defraudation cannot be recognized as a crime of fraud because the defendant did not engage in deception with the intention of not paying food values, even if he can be punished as a crime of concurrent crimes, it cannot be punished as a crime of fraud under the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment due to a habitual crime committed by the former without prison labor, and was sentenced to a fine of several times of fraud. At the time of the instant crime, it can be recognized that the actual Defendant’s wall, at the time of the instant crime, did not have the amount to be paid for food value. As such, the Defendant received food from the injured party without his/her ability or intent to pay the food value at the time of the instant crime.

full recognition may be accepted.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. In comparison with the first instance court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and in the event that the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant agreed with the victim D (2017 Height 5011), J (2017 Height 5345, Jul. 2017), M (2017 Height 629, Jul. 23, 2017).

However, only 15 times the defendant was punished as a crime interfering with the business, and the records of imprisonment with prison labor have reached two times, and in particular, the crime of this case constitutes a repeated crime of the same kind.

As long as the defendant repeats the crime despite the continued punishment, it is severe punishment.