2. The crime of this case is determined by deceiving the victim as if the defendant would pay the liquor price without the intention or ability to pay it, and deceiving the victim by acquiring alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 440,00 from the damaged person, and it is difficult to view it as a serious crime.

However, there is a high possibility of criticism in light of the fact that the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime more than 17 times, and that there are four previous convictions, more than others, again commits the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime, and not completely recover from the damage to the victim, and there is a risk of recidivism by the defendant.

The above points are considered in light of the circumstances unfavorable to them.

However, taking into account the favorable circumstances in which the Defendant’s mistake is in profoundly against the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, means and consequence of the Defendant’s crime, and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of the above points, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair because the sentencing of the Defendant is too large, as alleged by the Defendant.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.