The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) argues that the defendant would pay the price and that the defendant would not have any obligation to pay the price in the age club with three other parties including the defendant, and that the defendant would not have any obligation to pay the price despite the police's recommendation to pay the price, and that the police station did not pay the price despite the police's recommendation to pay the price, the court below found the charge of this case not guilty, but has erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. Although the Defendant did not have an intent or ability to pay the price even if he was provided with alcohol and alcohol, the Defendant, at around 00:30, Sept. 17, 201, conducted as if he would pay the alcohol price to the victim D, an employee, at the Daejeon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Caltra No. 10, Sept. 17, 201.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the amount of KRW 24,00,00 in the amount of KRW 199,00 based on the two weeks, KRW 5,000 based on the two weeks, KRW 25,000 for beer, and KRW 20,000 for room expenses, and did not pay the amount.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant appears to have continuously earned income while engaging in the construction business; (b) the amount of KRW 240,000,00 as stated in the facts charged, is somewhat high; (c) however, if the general public who is currently raising the Defendant’s age group’s continuous income, it is an amount that can be settled by credit card even if not cash, and thus, it does not seem that it is impossible or difficult for the Defendant to settle it from the standpoint of the Defendant; and (c) E, F, and G, each of their large enterprise cooperation employees or large enterprise employees, to pay the above amount.