The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The sentence (7 million won in penalty) that the court below rendered by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. The fact that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol due to difficult economic circumstances at the time, and that it is difficult to view that the victim D and G suffered damage due to the instant crime was excessive. The fact that the Defendant agreed with the victims in the trial process of the lower court that the victims did not want punishment, and that his mistake is divided and reflected, are favorable to the Defendant.

However, there are many kinds of records of punishment of fines for the same crime, and even if the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for the same crime on or around 2014, he/she repeatedly committed the crime in this case during the period of the suspended sentence, even though he/she was sentenced to the same crime, and the crime in this case was committed repeatedly during the suspended sentence. The criminal act in this case was committed by the defendant in excess of the amount of alcoholic beverage price by ordering alcohol and so on at the amusement point operated by the victims without the ability or intent to properly calculate the drinking value, etc., and it is not good for the circumstances of the crime and the nature of the crime. Nevertheless, the defendant sought to justify his/her act by asserting that he/she was in a state of mental and physical weakness for reasons of drinking and depression during the trial of the court below, and all other sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, environment, and sex behavior are considered to be unfair because

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided after pleading as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The criminal facts of the defendant and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts constituting the crime of the defendant and the summary of the evidence. Thus, it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.