All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ punishment (each imprisonment of eight months, a suspended sentence of two years, and a community service order of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts asked whether the Defendants can work on credit only in the course of calculating after drinking alcohol. Although there was a bit between the same main points, the Defendants did not drink on credit prior to this time.

When the victim refuses the request for credit, the victim started to boom his/her behavior while taking a bath immediately.

Considering these circumstances, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants had no intention to pay the drinking value, and thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (each of 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As acknowledged by the lower court in regard to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that the Defendants acquired the intent by deception in light of the following: (a) the Defendants had a certain occupation and import; (b) the Defendants performed alcohol in other two places; (c) the payment of credit cards; (d) the possession of cash by a trader; and (e) the Defendant, when granting approval by a credit card, issued an order to the victim by taking out the details of approval from the family; and (e) the Defendant would transfer the amount on the following day; and (b) the fact that the main shareholder refused credit card, while the main shareholder refused to give an appraisal, did not control the appraisal and did not put the abusive and

Examining the record, the lower court’s finding of facts is right and wrong, and in addition to the statement that “H, the main owner of which is the fact-finding of the lower court, found the Defendant B from about one year prior to the date of approval, the volume No. 3-4 was well approved, and the degree No. 5 level was set up at the level of credit (the police investigation on November 6, 2013).”