All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the crime No. 1 in its holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, the crime No. 2-A and (b) in its holding, and the crime No. 3 in its holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the fraud by misunderstanding the facts, although the defendant could be found that he received alcohol and he had no capacity to pay the drinking value from the beginning even though he was unable to do so.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible.

2. The lower court determined as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, based on the following: (a) the Defendant had no intent to pay the alcohol value, taking into account the following: (b) the Defendant had engaged in credit transactions with the ordinary victim; and (c) the drinking value was 35,000 won.

It is difficult to see that the defendant did not have the settlement payment at the time.

Even if the victim did not perform the act of disposal in this case, it cannot be readily concluded that the victim did not perform the act of disposal in this case, and when considering the economic situation of the defendant, the defendant was not capable

On the ground that it is difficult to regard it as fraud, the court acquitted the defendant.

According to the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and direct determination of the unfair argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, there exists a unique area of the first instance judgment as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower judgment because new materials of sentencing have not been submitted at the trial court, and when comprehensively considering all the reasons for sentencing presented by the lower court, the lower court is too heavy or is at discretion.