All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the relationship between the Defendant of mistake of facts and the J, the relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant’s identity card attached to the alcohol house, and the possibility of the Defendant’s settlement of the mobile phone amount, etc., even though the J’s statement was sufficiently believed, the lower court deemed that the J’s statement was not reliable, and that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the fraud by using computers, etc. among the facts charged in the instant case, there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of the facts, and thus, the sentence imposed by the lower

2. Unlike the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant consistently asserted that the Defendant had been paying small amounts of money with the consent of the J, instead of having to fully bear the drinking value at the time, unlike the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts.

The court below stated in the court below that J's cell phone period can be cancelled through prior entry of the perception or password of the face registered in advance, and that the date of birth of J in order to settle small amount of money must be known. The defendant cannot know how he was aware of the date of birth of J without going through J at the time, and that "I lent a cell phone to the defendant at the time of payment and pay the drinking value No. 2, one of which would have been settled at the time of payment," but the court below stated in the court below's decision that "No. 1 of the J's cell phone at the time of payment was sent to the defendant by his N card or corporate card." However, the N card or corporate card was written differently from the court below's decision that there was no fact that J borrowed a cell phone from the defendant at the police, and in light of the fact that J stated in the court below's decision that "There are parts that are not memory in the middle of drinking water and that there was no other parts that are not memory in the middle."