A. In relation to Defendant 1’s fraud, the Defendant received the victim’s statement that he would calculate the telecom with his credit card, and paid the telecom with the credit card, and did not use the credit card of the victim at will. In addition, since it was wholly used for the benefit of the victim, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant acquired any pecuniary benefit. 2) In relation to the theft, the Defendant did not have stolen the victim’s wall and cash.

B. As to the point of quasi-indecent act, the court below found the victim not guilty on the ground that the victim was unable to specifically memory the damage situation as stated in the facts charged, but it stated that the victim was out of all the clothes of the victim who was able to be able to influence at the time as stated in the facts charged. In light of the fact that the defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol, made a statement that he was able to influence the victim, and that he was able to influence the victim's body.

B) With regard to theft against half land, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that the victim would have lost his counter land in another place, but on the ground that the counter land attached to his fingers could not normally take place after getting away from the exercise of artificial tangible power, and can recognize the fact by taking away the counter land attached to the victim’s fingers under the influence of alcohol or the victim’s fingers, and can be recognized as the facts between them. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of KRW 4 million) is too weak.

2. Determination:

A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion is based on each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court. The Defendant and the victim first become aware of the “Dju” located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, on January 8, 2012 in the new wall.