The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Fact-misunderstanding (not guilty part in the judgment of the court below) ① The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, presented to the owner of the drinking house (hereinafter “the instant drinking house”) and the police officer a credit card whose transaction had been suspended, not only the remaining physical card, but also the credit card whose transaction had been suspended, and eventually, failed to pay the drinking value indicated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “the drinking value”). ② The Defendant was able to repay the drinking value of the instant drinking house after being investigated by the police in relation to the instant act, and was released and returned to the police, but he was able to pay the drinking value of the instant case. ③ The Defendant did not submit a card statement to the investigative agency, or was given an opportunity for the Defendant to submit the card statement to the effect that there was a balance in the physical card at that time, etc. ④ The Defendant did not have any intention to pay the drinking value at the time of the instant act, in light of the fact that the above Defendant did not change the drinking value until the instant judgment was received.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous as a mistake of fact.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts (the part not guilty in the judgment below)

가. 이 부분 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2017. 6. 11. 03:40 경 성남시 중원구 E 지층 “D 클럽 ”에서 술값을 지불할 의사나 능력이 없음에도 불구하고 피해자를 기망하여 진토 닉 칵테일 1 잔을 제공받아 6,000원 상당의 재산상 이득을 취하였다.

B. 1) The finding of guilt in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge’s conviction to the extent that there is no doubt as to the existence of such evidence. In the absence of such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the Defendant’s conviction, the Defendant is also the suspect.