A. At the time of a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant did not have to pay food value to E.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one hundred thousand won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content of the first instance court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, and evidence duly examined by the first instance court, if there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or if the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is not deemed considerably unfair considering the result of the first instance court’s examination and the result of additional examination of evidence by the time the argument was concluded, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). E. The lower court affirmed the lower court’s determination that the Defendant stated “D and alcohol together with H, etc. on April 3, 2013, and each of the above facts charged were stated by the lower court.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit, since there is no circumstance to see that maintaining or maintaining it is remarkably unfair.

B. The food value that the defendant did not pay on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is interest.