The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant attempted to pay taxi expenses with the money borrowed from J, but did not pay the money due to no money by JJ, and did not have intention to commit fraud. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of fraud among the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant stated in the police that “I am unfashed and unfashed from ordinary taxi articles, I am out of the match and take out flight.” The prosecution stated that “I am a taxi without any property and without any separate income,” and “I am a taxi if I am a taxi without money. I am a escape. If I am a taxi without money. When you report to the police, I am ordinarily open to the police and sent to the office. I am a house.” Thus, the police and the prosecutorial office recognized the fraud of this case. The Defendant, in the police, the prosecution and the court of original trial, recognized the fraud of this case, and the prosecution and the court below argued that I am a taxi cost to be lent money from the J, and the above assertion that there was no intention of the Defendant to commit fraud, considering the fact that there was no new fraud in the police, the prosecutorial office and the court of original judgment.”

B. As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the defendant depends on a drunk environment in which it is difficult for the defendant to live.

The crime of interference with the business of this case led to each of the crimes of this case, and the defendant under the influence of alcohol obstructed the operation of the bus by cutting down the two arms on the road, and preventing the bus, and the defendant does not directly exercise the power to directly use the bus driving engineer or bus.