All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence of the original judgment by the prosecutor (the first instance court: 5 months of imprisonment, and the second instance court: 6 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. According to Defendant 1’s statement of grounds of appeal dated November 19, 2019, which was submitted by the Defendant for mistake of facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant alleged a mistake of facts against the judgment of the first instance as the grounds of appeal in addition to the unreasonable sentencing, and there is no clear withdrawal of the assertion of mistake of facts on the date of the trial of the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6834, Feb. 26, 2003). As to the fraud in the judgment of the first instance, with regard to the fact of fraud, the Defendant was able to understand in advance to the restaurant employees and ordered food on credit, and there was no intention to receive the food cost. 2) The sentence of the judgment of the

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

The judgment of the court below was rendered against the defendant, and the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the whole of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this court decided to hold the above appeal cases together.

However, the judgment of the court below against the defendant should be sentenced to a single punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to each of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained

On the other hand, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment to the effect that the facts charged in the instant case were modified as follows, and the subject of the judgment was changed by the court's permission. Thus, among the case of [2019No2268] (the case of the second judgment), the facts constituting habitual fraud in the facts charged are completed.

After departure, the Defendant added the following criminal facts. On September 13, 2019, at around 09:10, the Defendant expressed his/her intent or ability to pay taxi charges in front of the taxi platform of the Gu-U.S. comprehensive cross-city bus in the Gu-U.S. city.