A. In relation to the fraud of the victimY among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) had, at the time, engaged in the business by means of getting the customer to know the main points operated by the victim (hereinafter “victim’s main points”); (b) it is common for a person who calculated the drinking value to get off the Ban on the main points; and (c) was not the Defendant but the Defendant, at the time of the instant case’s main points; and (d) the Defendant was to calculate the “mar” in the Defendant’s daily activity at the time of the instant case, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant was to be a customer of the Defendant, such as “mar” in the victim’s main points; and (b) the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the victim alcoholic beverages; and (b) the Defendant did not have attempted to deceive the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected this part of the Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of mistake of fact on the grounds that the Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part, and that the court below can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant had obtained delivery of both states, etc. by deceiving the victim according to the evidence at that time, in particular the victim Y’s statement in the court below.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, that is, the victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, “the defendant talks that he would drink from the first order from the victim’s main point to the court of the court of the court below,” and “the defendant would pay the price immediately because the OTP card is in the house.”

It refers to the victim's main point, but contact is made.